Skip to main content

Full text of "The economic morals of the Jesuits; an answer to Dr. H. M. Robertson"

See other formats

THE \ 




La justice et la ve rite sont deux pointes 
si subfiles, que nas instruments sont trop 
e mousse s pour y toucher exactement. S ils 
y arrivent Us en ecachent la points et 
appuient tout autour, plus sur le faux que 
sur le vrai. 

PASCAL, Pensees 









TN a world where there are so many better things to do, 
JL controversy of the kind to which this little book is 
committed must seem banal and hateful to the last degree. 
There is no unity in it, for one thing, and such a riot of 
quotations as might have fatigued the melancholy Burton 
himself. To make matters worse, most of these quota 
tions are in a foreign language which refuses to be wedded 
with any grace to the English text, and yet could not be 
translated without an appearance of abominable con 
descension. I hope that it is not taking the bread out of 
reviewers mouths to say such things. They are sadly 
true, but there is this much excuse for them that I had 
to follow where I was led. If somebody suggests that 
there was no compulsion, I shall suggest in my turn that 
he must be singularly untouched by the loyalties of brother 
hood and family which ordinary people are not too eman 
cipated to cherish. I wrote for the simple reason that 
I love the Society of Jesus with all my heart. 





1. Arnauld s Effort . .22 


2. From Pascal to Pirot . 46 



CASES . . . .88 

INDEX .... 155 


IN a very interesting volume recently issued from the 
Cambridge University Press 1 Dr. H. M. Robertson, 
Senior Lecturer in Economics in the University of Cape 
town, subjects to detailed and, in many respects, highly 
effective criticism the well-known thesis of Max Weber 
that the capitalist spirit, or, in other words, the pursuit 
of gain as a principle of conduct, is a product of Protes 
tantism, chiefly in its English Puritan form. Against 
that thesis, which he considers to have found such wide 
acceptance because of its utility to the propagandist , 
Dr. Robertson wishes to show that the spirit of capital 
ism has arisen rather from the material conditions of 
civilization than from some religious impulse (Aspects, 
p. xvi). Even a complete layman in these matters may 
be permitted to say that he thinks he has been extremely 
successful in his enterprise. Mr. Tawney had already 
reached a similar conclusion in his admirable and 
exhilarating book, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, 
though, while denying that the capitalist spirit was the 
offspring of Puritanism , he allowed that Puritanism 
in its later phases added a halo of ethical sanctification 
to the appeal of economic expediency and offered a 
moral creed in which the duties of religion and the 
calls of business ended their long estrangement in an 
unanticipated reconciliation . 2 
Between the two scholarly and very sincere books 

1 Aspects of the Rise of Economic Individualism: A criticism of Max Weber and 
his school. Pp. xvi+2i3. The book is the first of a new series entitled Cam- 
bridge Studies in Economic History , edited by Dr. J. H. Clapham. 

2 O.c., London, 1926, pp. 239-40. 


2 Indictment of Jesuits 

above mentioned there is, however, one striking differ 
ence. In the establishment of his case Mr. Tawney 
found it quite unnecessary to save the Puritans from the 
imputations of Weber at the expense of some other reli 
gious body. Dr. Robertson, on the contrary, makes the 
doings of another religious body a main plank of his 
argument, believing that if he can show it to have held 
and taught similar views to those of the Puritans on the 
ordering of life, and even more liberal views than they 
on the ethics of business relationships, then plainly the 
Puritans cannot be held solely responsible for the spirit 
of capitalism which Weber sought to derive from their 
theology. Now, as everybody knows, in famous words, 
il n est rien tel que les Jesuites , so to the Jesuits, on 
Pascal s hint, Dr. Robertson turns. He is perfectly 
within his rights in doing so and, indeed, he makes a 
prima facie case of no little cogency. But there would 
seem to be one very serious flaw in his logic. Max 
Weber s thesis is principally concerned with the rise of 
economic individualism in England and North America. 
He takes practically all his illustrations from the writings 
of English or American Puritans. To confute him, then, 
and to show, as Dr. Robertson attempts, that, in so far 
as religion had anything to do with the rise of the 
capitalist spirit, it was not Calvinism but the religion 
of the Jesuits which helped, 1 it would plainly be neces 
sary to show Jesuitry working towards this end in 
England and North America, during the period in question, 
which was roughly the century 1570-1670. What 
Jesuits were doing or teaching in other parts of the i/vorld 

1 The argument that Calvinism relaxed the discipline of the Christian in 
his conduct of commercial affairs is untrue. Jesuitry relaxed this discipline 
more than any other branch of religion. Aspects of the Rise of Economic Individual 
ism, p. 109. 

Indictment of Jesuits 3 

is irrelevant to the issue, unless it had some bearing on 
the development of ideas in England and America. Now 
the only Jesuit mentioned by Dr. Robertson who ever 
put foot in England was Father Jasper Haywood, uncle 
of the famous Donne of St. Paul s. Most of the man s 
sojourn here was spent in a London prison and, as to 
his views on the ethics of commerce, he was nothing 
less than notorious on the Continent for fanatical 
^opposition to any relaxation of the traditional discipline. 
Other Jesuits working in England at the time can hardly 
be said to have had much opportunity for influencing 
the trend of ideas, as their only public platform was a 
cart at Tyburn or some other place of execution. And 
the same is true of the Jesuits in North America at the 
time, eight of whom are now canonized martyrs in 
the calendar of the Catholic Church. Isolated in the 
Indian settlements from all contact with other white 
men, they could scarcely have had much influence on 
the commercial thought of the English or Dutch colo 
nists, and, besides, we have their own Relations , pub 
lished under Government auspices in seventy-three 
volumes not so very long ago, to tell us exactly what they 
were about. 

It must be said immediately that Dr. Robertson does 
not claim to have found any link connecting the Eng- 
lish or American Jesuits with the triumphant chariot 
of capitalism. He never mentions them,. except Hay- 
wood, and him only for his part in certain theological 
debates in, Bavaria. All his concern is with French, 
German, Spanish, or Italian Jesuits, but he makes no 
attempt to prove that their teaching, however liberal 
it may have been, contributed in the slightest degree to 
the evolution of a capitalist mentality in England and 

4 Indictment of Jesuits 

America. Would it not have been better, then, if, 
following Mr. Tawney s example, he had left the Jesuits 
alone? Surely they have been mauled enough already 
in popular histories to deserve a little peace in sober 
academic treatises. Yet I know of no modern book 
where they are made to appear in blacker colours than 
in Aspects of the Rise of Economic Individualism. Of 213 
pages in that work no fewer than 31 are devoted ex 
clusively to the denigration of their teaching and their 
practice, so who can blame one of them if he ventures 
to point out some unintentional but very grave mis 
representations in that heavy indictment? 

The Jesuits first come on the scene as early as p. xiv 
of Aspects. Dr. Robertson had cited a little before two 
passages from English books describing what their 
writers conceived to be typical business men. The first 
was from the Discourse upon Usury by the amusingly 
vituperative Elizabethan, Dr. Thomas Wilson, and the 
other, a magnificent piece of satire from the Areopagitica 
which runs as follows: 

A wealthy man addicted to his pleasure and to his profits, 
finds Religion to be a traffic so entangled, and of so many 
piddling accounts, that of all mysteries he cannot skill to 
keep a stock going upon that trade. What should he do? 
fain would he have the name to be religious, fain would he 
bear up with his neighbours in that. What does he therefore, 
but resolves to give over toiling, and to find himself out some 
Factor, to whose care and credit he may commit the whole 
managing of his religious affairs; some Divine of note. and 
estimation that must be. To him he adheres, resigns the 
whole warehouse of his religion, with all the Locks and Keys 
into his custody; and indeed makes the very person of that 
man his Religion; esteems his associating with him a suffi 
cient evidence and commendatory of his own Piety. So that 

Indictment of Jesuits 5 

a man may say his Religion is now no more within himself, 
but is become a dividual moveable, and goes and comes near 
him, according as the good man frequents the house. He 
entertains him, gives him gifts, feasts him, lodges him; his 
Religion comes home at night, prays, is liberally supt, and 
sumptuously laid to sleepe; rises, is saluted, and after malmsey 
or some well-spic t bruage, and better breakfasted than He 
whose morning appetite would gladly have fed on green figs 
between Bethany and Jerusalem, his Religion walks abroad at 
eight, and leaves his kind entertainer in the shop trading all 
day without his religion. 

Nothing , comments Dr. Robertson, could be 
further from the Puritan than either of these two types. 
. . . Neither fits in with a Puritan setting. The second, 
indeed, would be much more at home among the 
Jesuits with their system of expert casuistry. I do not 
know whether the reader will agree, but to me it seems 
that this is an assertion which no one, and least of all 
a teacher in a responsible position, has a right to make 
without some show of proof. Because the Jesuits em 
ploy casuistry it does not follow that they are ready to 
free a man of moral responsibility in the conduct of 
his business. Casuistry, after all, is, in Mr. Tawney s 
words, merely the application of general principles to ^ 
particular cases, which is involved in any living system 
of jurisprudence whether ecclesiastical or secular . 1 
The moots held from time to time at the Inns of Court 
are as much casuistry as the subtlest efforts of Escobar, 
and if we would seek a lineage for the practice we 
must go back to the Stoics and to Cicero with his set 
treatise devoted to it in the De qfficiis. As for a merchant 
without a conscience finding himself at home among the 
Jesuits, it is pertinent to mention at least two of the 

1 Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, p. 100. 

6 Indictment of Jesuits 

fraternity who were not quite so accommodating to 
moneyed interests. After St. Ignatius, the most repre 
sentative and influential of the early Jesuits was Diego 
Laynez. For nine years he ruled the whole Society of 
Jesus, at the very time when the question of taking 
interest for loans was beginning to assume a formidable 
importance. To him as to their greatest theologian the 
Jesuits scattered throughout Europe looked for guidance, 
and the guidance which they received is set down for us 
all to read in his treatise, De usura et variis contractibus 
mercatorum. 1 When, in 1553-4, Laynez found himself 
in Genoa, the great Mecca of traders and company- 
promoters, he felt it was his duty to preach a course of 
sermons on the very live topics of contracts and financial 
dealings. Such an impression did he make that the civil 
authorities published an edict ordering all merchants 
to submit their books and contracts for theological 
revision. 2 Nor will it be irrelevant to the point at issue 
if I turn for a moment to the Jesuits at the Council of 
Trent. The three men, the Cardinal of Lorraine, Arch 
bishop Guerrero, and Bishop Drascovics, whose aims 
and views in the Council they opposed most deter 
minedly were the three best friends their Society had 
in France, Spain, and Hungary. Without the Cardinal 
of Lorraine the Society could not have survived in 
France, yet they fought his Gallican schemes inch by 
inch throughout the last phase of the Council, and as 
for the Emperor, whom Drascovics represented, his 
failure to secure from the Fathers the coveted grant of 
the lay chalice was due principally to the efforts of 
Laynez. At the close of a great discourse which he 

1 Grisar, Jacobi Lainez disputationes Tridentinae, vol. ii (Innsbruck, 1886), 
pp. 227-331. 2 Grisar, l.c. } pp. 6i*-6a*.. 

Indictment of Jesuits 7 

delivered on the subject, Laynez, then General of the 
Jesuits, spoke as follows: 

It is not because I am lacking in ready deference to the 
wishes of His Imperial Majesty, in all things unopposed to 
God and my conscience, that I have reached this conclusion. 
I know well that all of us who belong to this least Society 
of Jesus are bound to His Majesty s service by many ties. 
The Emperor was the first of Catholic princes to receive and 
foster our Society in his dominions. He has erected and 
founded colleges for us in various places, as those now in 
existence at Vienna, Prague, Tyrnau, and Innsbruck testify. 
Imitating the example of his father-in-law, the Duke of 
Bavaria 1 has likewise given us colleges in Ingolstadt and 
Munich and is preparing to establish others. But the more 
indebted we are for favours and kindness, the greater has 
been my obligation to say out faithfully what I thought 
would best promote the glory of God and the salvation of 
such great Princes and their subjects. 2 

These assuredly are not the accents of a man with 
whom Milton s unscrupulous merchant would have 
been at home, nor, if we listen to another Jesuit who 
ruled the Province of his Order which included the city 
of the Fuggers, Augsburg, for fourteen years, do we hear 
anything different. Indeed, St. Peter Ganisius was so 
persistent in his denunciation of bankers and mer 
chants shady dealings from the pulpit of Augsburg 
Cathedral that the less squeamish canons there, who 
were drawing incomes from questionable investments 
themselves, subjected him to a long period of petty 
persecution and eventually deprived him of his office 
of preacher.3 Yet among St. Peter s closest friends and 

1 At that moment another eager petitioner for the concession of the chalice 
to the laity. 2 Grisar, I.e., pp. 68-9. 

3 Cf. Braunsberger, Beati Petri Canisii epistulae et acta, vol. iii (Freiburg, 1911), 
PP. 543-4> 564> 585. 628-30. 

8 Indictment of Jesuits 

benefactors were Ursula and George Fugger, of the 
greatest banking family in Germany, but it was not his 
expert casuistry that commended him to these people. 
Indeed, his preaching against usury raised the most 
serious scruples in their minds. Owing to the number of 
colleges and missions which he had started he was 
always in sore straits for money to support his men, and 
he could have had all he wanted had he been ready to 
come to terms with the busy, thriving world about him. 
That, however, was a thing inconceivable for him, and 
not for him only but for the vast majority of his brethren. 
If it be answered that neither he nor Laynez were typical 
Jesuits, one is entitled to give a gratuitous denial to a 
gratuitous assertion. We have Aristotle s authority for 
claiming that the type is the best and not the worst of 
its class. There have been bad, unscrupulous, ambi 
tious, foolish Jesuits especially foolish ones, and a 
Jesuit fool is much the same as any other sort of fool 
but if we seek the spirit of the Society of Jesus we are 
absolutely justified in turning to its great army of 
canonized or beatified Saints and Martyrs who were 
the living embodiment of its rules and constitutions. 
Speaking of Canisius, a good Cambridge scholar wrote 
as follows some years ago: To his energy and sweetness 
of character, to his tact and understanding of the needs 
of Germany, to his devoted and self-denying life, his 
resolve to shame the Catholic "respectables" and to 
uphold the highest standard of morals, both in private 
and commercial life, was due a success which even 
among Jesuit victories is remarkable and hardly has a 
parallel in history. 1 Braunsberger s eight volumes of 

1 Dr. J. Neville Figgis in The English Historical Review, vol. xxiv (January, 
1909), PP- 42-3- 

Indictment of Jesuits 9 

his correspondence afford irrefragable proof that it was 
because St. Peter was so true a Jesuit that he became 
so great and noble a man. 

On p. 1 7 of his book Dr. Robertson points the contrast 
between Puritan and Jesuit ethics once again. He had 
been discussing Baxter s Christian Directory, from which 
famous treatise he concluded, after an admirable analy 
sis, that there were two sides to the teaching of the grand 
old Puritan. In some respects liberal and forward- 
looking, he remained on the whole profoundly con 
servative and accepted the purposive philosophy of the 
social idealist rather than the mechanistic one of the 
individualist . To illustrate this predominant element 
of Baxter s teaching, Robertson cites the following few 
lines which show him whole-heartedly on the side of 
the objective determination of the just value, quite in 
the medieval manner : 

But if that which you have to sell be extraordinarily 
desirable, or worth to some other person, more than to you 
or another man, you must not take too great an advantage 
of his convenience or desire. 

Having made this point, Dr. Robertson continues: It 
is only in his treatment of subordinate matters that the 
other Baxter appears and this is the Baxter who is 
furthest from the old Puritan and nearest to the Jesuit. 
Well, let us see. Cardinal de Lugo, who has his own 
place in Dr. Robertson s calendar of reprehensible 
Jesuit moralists, was an elder contemporary of Baxter, 
and dealt as did the Puritan with the question of just 
value. Like him he was strongly for its objective de 
termination and held that a just price is either the price 
fixed by law or else quod juxta communem hominum 
aestimationem et judicium constitutum est, non ex 

io Indictment of Jesuits 

unius vel alterius private affectu . Baxter, we have seen, 
even in his conservative mood did not forbid the seller 
to derive some profit from the subjective need of the 
buyer. All he insists on is that you must not take too 
great advantage of the buyer s convenience or desire. 
Let us now hear de Lugo on exactly the same point: 

The common value is increased by the scarcity of the 
commodities, by the greater number of purchasers, by the 
abundance of money, just as it decreases for the contrary 
reasons. It is not, however, sufficient in order to increase 
the price of an article that the purchaser should have greater 
need of it, or from possession of it should have opportunity 
to make great profit. Nor can anyone sell bread at a dearer 
price to a hungry person, merely because the buyer is hungry, 
nor a bundle of common herbs to one who knows a secret 
method of making from them a valuable medicine, for these 
considerations do not change the common estimate of the 
worth of the things. But if the seller himself stands in special 
need of the article, or fears loss if he parts with it, or has a 
peculiar attachment to it, he can for these reasons increase 
the price by the amount at which they may be prudently 
estimated; not because the value of the article increases from 
the attachment, the loss, or the private necessity of the seller, 
but because beyond the just price of the article he asks some 
thing, not for the article itself, but in consideration of his 
attachment or loss, which also is assessable at a price. The 
feeling of the purchaser, on the other hand, or his special 
need of the article, cannot be sold, as St. Thomas says, 
Quaest. LXXVII, art. i. The reason is that these all apper 
tain to the purchaser and not to the seller who cannot sell 
what does not belong to him but only what he personally 
loses or ceases to gain. 1 

The style of this passage is not its loveliest character- 

1 Joannis de Lugo, Disputationes scholasticae et morales, vol. vii (Paris ed., 1869), 
pp. 273, 275. (De Justitia et Jure, Disp. XXVI, sec. iv, nn. 38, 43.) 

Indictment of Jesuits 1 1 

istic, but the reader can hardly fail to detect a shrewd 
and scrupulously impartial mind behind the clumsily 
wrought sentences, one moreover that compares not 
unfavourably even with Baxter at his best and most 
conservative. On p. 104 of Dr. Robertson s book de 
Lugo appears in an odious connexion. The Jesuits, we 
are told, writes the author, had a maxim that "there 
is nothing like business", and they certainly acted up 
to it. When a Jesuit cardinal (de Lugo) approves of 
"sweating", we know that we have found a religion 
which has moved far from medieval ideas into the world 
of laissez-faire.* 

Leaving over the question of de Lugo s approval 
of sweating for the moment, I think I am entitled 
to ask Dr. Robertson whether he can mention one single 
book in the whole of SommervogePs vast Bibliotheque 
des ecrivains de la Compagnie de Jesus where the maxim 
that there is nothing like business may be found. 
Dr. Robertson insists a little on his quality as an histor 
ian pure and simple, and censures Max Weber for the 
application of non-historical methods to an historical 
problem (Aspects, p. xi). Now is it good history on his 
own part to attribute the maxim in question to the ^ 
Jesuits because he found it attributed to them in an 
anonymous compilation which he admits in a belated 
note five pages farther on to have been put together by 
persons concerned to paint the Jesuits in as dark colours 
as possible ? And is it good history to say in one breath 
the Jesuits, we are told , and in the next the Jesuits 
certainly . . . ? Do historians believe everything they are 
told, and are they of such a sweet and guileless disposi 
tion that they take everything which they find in print 
for a certainty? 

12 Indictment of Jesuits 

The title of that particular compilation is La Morale 
pratique des Jesuites, published in 1669. A few lines 
farther on Dr. Robertson finds in another anonymous 
compilation, La Theologie morale des Jesuites, published 
in 1659, that a Jesuit casuist, on being asked whether 
an innkeeper might invite a guest to dine on a fast day, 
knowing that he is issuing an invitation to sin, answered 
that there was a probable opinion for the lawfulness of 
doing so because the innkeeper s primary intention is 
not to incite to sin but to make profit by providing a 
meal. How does this compare , asks Dr. Robertson, 
with the prohibition of Saturday and Monday markets 
in Scotland? The suggestion here is that the Jesuits, 
with their famous maxim about business, were ready to 
wink at a good deal, even to condone co-operation in 
sin, rather than hinder trade, whereas the godly Puri 
tans were so other-worldly that they hedged Sunday 
about with two trading holidays lest any one should be 
tempted to desecrate it through lack of other times for 
recreation or through having to make a journey for 
the market on Monday. Dr. Robertson, following his 
French source-book, cites a certain Tambourin for the 
opinion given, and adds, as though from independent 
investigation: This opinion is in conformity with 
opinions of Sanchez and Diana. But these two also 
are mentioned at the same place in La Theologie morale 
des Jesuites. We can leave Diana out, as it has escaped 
Dr. Robertson s notice that he was not a Jesuit. It is 
surprising that he was not transmogrified into Diane 
by the French writers. Tambourin was Tomaso 
Tamburini, a Sicilian Jesuit, but, as we shall see later, 
he neither propounded the case mentioned nor solved 
it in the way he is alleged to have done, so we may dis- 

Indictment of Jesuits 13 

pense ourselves from, the task of comparing his views 
with those of the Scottish Sabbatarians. 

Dr. Robertson s next case is an interesting one. 
A Jesuit affirms , he writes, that a bankrupt is entitled 
to retain as much from his creditors as will maintain 
him decorously ut decore vivat and it is explained that 
this must not be taken as an incitement to "long-firm 
frauds", for the Jesuits do not favour aggrandizement 
by injustice, but "if the casuists have milder sentiments, 
it is for the good merchants who have received of their 
fathers an honourable estate and position, or else who 
have arrived by good and legitimate ways to a better 
position than their birth brought them". This is, of 
course, precisely what is alleged to be an innovation of 
the Puritans (Aspects, p. 104). The only reference we 
are given for the matter is Pirot, Apologie pour les 
Casuistes\ without any indication of date, edition, or 
page. 1 In Dr. Robertson s opinion Tirot represents 
Jesuit doctrines very admirably (Aspects, p. 158), so we 
shall not scruple later on to devote a whole section to 
a person of such importance. 

All sorts of speculations , he continues, were allowed 
by the Jesuits some even of a doubtful morality. Here 
is the proof. A servant is given some gold pieces by his 
master to make purchases or transact other business. 
It was a bi-metallic country and the servant was astute. 
Going to a bureau de change he obtained silver for his gold, 
did business with the silver and pocketed what he had 
gained on the exchange. Was he bound to make restitu 
tion? A certain mysterious Professor of Cases of 
Conscience at Bourges is reported to have answered 

1 Later on (Aspects, p. 159, n. i), this same book is referred to in the following 
manner: Tirot, loc. cit., passim. 

14 Indictment of Jesuits 

that he was not, though he committed a venial sin by 
keeping the money. Voila! There is the proof that the 
whole Society of Jesus went in for speculations of all 
sorts, sometimes doubtfully moral. As Dr. Robertson s 
source-book, La Theologie morale des Jesuites, stops the 
poor Professor s mouth with an &c. just when he is 
about to give his explanations, we may seek them from 
his great brother in religion and contemporary, 
Lessius: If I give my servant or business agent a thou 
sand gold pieces with which to pay my creditor, not 
caring in what species of money the transaction is 
accomplished, and he should change the gold for silver, 
making a profit thereby, and pay the creditor in silver, 
keeping the profit for himself, he is not obliged to 
restore the latter. The reason is that the profit is the 
fruit of the servant s own industry and was made at 
the servant s risk. It is consequently not due to me, the 
owner of the gold, nor to the creditor, because he did not 
stipulate for payment in gold and was fully satisfied 
with the silver. But if my intention was that the creditor 
should be paid in gold because I desired to gratify him 
and to give him the opportunity of making profit on 
the exchange, then, if he could and would have made 
the profit, the servant is obliged to make good to him 
to the amount at which that profit is estimated. ... If, 
however, the creditor did not intend to put his money 
to advantage on the exchange but only to use it in the 
ordinary way at its legal value, then the servant is not 
under any obligation to restore, because, though he did 
wrong by not paying in gold, he caused the other to 
suffer no loss. 1 Before permitting himself to become 
indignant with this solution, Dr. Robertson might con- 

1 De Justitia et Jure, lib. 2, cap. 23, de Cambiis, dubitatio 2 3 n. 18. 

Indictment of Jesuits 15 

sider the consequences of other principles. Suppose, 
for instance, he were to write a book with pen, ink, and 
paper lent to him by Dr. Clapham, might not Dr. 
Clapham claim the book as his property, unless the 
principle of fructus industriae employed by Lessius is 

Lessius himself is next invoked by Dr. Robertson 
(Aspects, p. 105) to show that wherever the answer to 
any problem of morals might have an effect on economic 
life, the Jesuits paid great attention to the consequences 
their answer would have on trade . He does not go to 
Lessius direct, though that great man s treatise, De 
Justitia et Jure, is sufficiently well known and easily 
available, but takes his impressions from an article by 
V. Brants in the Revue d Histoire ecclesiastique. 1 Through 
the departure of the English merchants from Antwerp 
owing to the religious upheaval, the trade of the city 
had suffered severely. Its people clamoured for their 
return, and Lessius, being appealed to, answered that 
the civil authority might very well allow it because, 
though the merchants were heretics, they would be 
more likely to become Catholics than to make Protes 
tants of the Belgians. In any case, the Belgians would 
begin to emigrate to heretical lands if the merchants 
were not permitted to return, and that might constitute 
a far more serious danger to their faith. \Yhat a con 
trast this presents , writes Dr. Robertson, to the 
prohibition of the Spanish and Portuguese trade to 
Scotsmen on account of the possibilities of religious 
contamination! (Aspects, p. 105). That is to say, the 
Scots were forbidden to go into Catholic countries for 

1 In referring to the article Dr. Robertson first cites the wrong volume of the 
Revue, and then, a little farther on, the wrong pagination (Aspects, p. 104, n. 2; 
p. 106, n. i). 

1 6 Indictment of Jesuits 

fear they might lose the bloom of their Calvinism. The 
chief argument of Lessius, on the other hand, why the 
English merchants should be allowed back to Antwerp 
was that otherwise the Belgians might emigrate to 
Protestant countries and so lose the bloom of their 
Catholicism. What a contrast! 

Over the page, we are told that Lessius approved of 
merchants evading the decrees by which governments 
of the time endeavoured to make their peoples value 
good and bad money alike, in defiance of Gresham s 
law, and this is set down as proof that the Jesuits not 
only never tried to secure restrictions on trade such as 
the Calvinists imposed; they even made their opinions 
powerful solvents of the restrictions imposed by the 
State (Aspects, p. 106). The answer to that is that the 
Jesuits, unlike the Calvinists, had not seized on the civil 
power of any country and so were in no position to 
secure restrictions on trade. In the one place where 
they were granted civil administration, namely the 
Reductions of Paraguay, they not only restricted the 
trade of outsiders with the Indians but stopped it 
altogether, and so made for themselves a host of bitter 

Turning now to the view of Lessius that it was no sin 
to evade edicts standardizing the value of different 
currencies, we find by going to his own works and not 
trusting entirely to a generalized and sometimes obscure 
review article that he was not speaking of money as an 
ordinary medium of buying and selling but of money 
as itself a commodity in the cambia or exchanges. Pieces 
of money, he points out, can be considered from two 
angles, first as tokens measuring the value of things to 
be sold. That is their primary use, and as such they are 

Indictment of Jesuits 1 7 

worth no more than the amount fixed by the civil 
authority or, at any rate, than the value assigned to 
them by common usage in buying, selling, or payment 
of debts. In the second place, they may be considered 
as having intrinsic value on account of the material of 
which they are made, the image stamped upon them, 
or their antiquity. Some coins will have more material 
or purer material in them than others and, considered 
as commodities to be bought or sold like other things, 
will be more valuable, though as instruments of ex 
change this may not be so owing to the edict of authority. 
At the exchanges,then, where money is bought and sold 
in this second sense, it is permissible to buy or sell at 
higher or lower rates than that fixed by law for money 
used in its primary sense, juxta receptam locorum consue- 
tudinem. In all this Lessius is but following the lines laid 
down by the great Dominican theologians, Cajetan and 
Soto, so there is nothing peculiarly Jesuitical about his 
solution. In the discharge of debts , he concludes, no 
one is obliged to take money except at the value fixed 
for it by law. 1 

The next theologian mentioned by Dr. Robertson is 
a certain Bail. This man he found in Pirot s Apologie 
pour Us Casuistes and assumed, therefore, that he was a 
Jesuit. Louis Bail, however, was no such thing, but Cure 
of Montmartres and a doctor of the Sorbonne. 2 

After him comes a man called Bauni, who said that it 
was not reprehensible to enter into contracts in which 
a higher rate of interest was demanded than the maxi 
mum stipulated by royal ordinance, as the debtors 
entered into them willingly, and for just reasons the 

1 De Justitia et Jure, de Cambiis, dubitatio 2, lib. 2, cap. 23. 

2 Dr. Robertson gives the name and page of Bail s book, which he found in 
Pirot, but not, for some curious reason, the page of Pirot on which they appear, 


1 8 Indictment of Jesuits 

rate fixed by ordinance might be exceeded . So they 
might, foijust reasons. Dr. Robertson refers us for all 
this to Bauni, Somme desPechez, 5th ed. (1639), PP- 335~ 
6 . Here at last is a really full and exact reference, only 
it is the identical one given in La Theologie morale des 
Jesuites, and when Dr. Robertson has occasion to cite 
the same man later on (Aspects, pp. 158-9), it is from 
La Theologie morale that he does so. Why he should per 
sistently misspell Bauny s name it is difficult to guess, 
as Pascal s fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth Provinciales 
are full of that obscure and much maligned Jesuit. 1 

Bauny makes way for Pirot, who speaks this time 
without reference of any description. Then enters 
Prince Sinister of all the casuists whose name has gone 
into the French vocabulary as a synonym for a prevari 
cator, none other than Antonio de Escobar y Mendoza. 
He, too, will occupy our attention later, so we may pass 
on to Dr. Robertson s more generalized indictment. 

The Jesuits as these examples show left the way 
open , he writes, Tor an unrestrained individualism in 
economic affairs. Under pressure from the laity whom 
they had to humour, they had given their blessing to 
every operation of the commercial spirit; justifying 
everything easily by the operation of the twin doctrines 
of "Probabilism" and of "the Direction of the Intention". 
At this point, Dr. Robertson cites a mysterious Bishop 
of Angelopolis , who appears suddenly from the pages 
of La Theologie morale like an angel of judgement, 
delivers sentence, and vanishes, all unexplained. An 
average reader must surely feel tempted to ask, Where 
in the name of creation is Angelopolis? Suppose I was 

1 The Index to Aspects has this peculiar entry: 

Bauni, E., 106, 156 n., 158, 159 n. 
Bauny, E., see Bauni. 

Indictment of Jesuits 19 

to write, The Bishop of Augusta Trinobantium states 
that Dr. Robertson picked Dr. Clapham s pocket, 
would Dr. Robertson consider that I had sufficiently 
identified his accuser? His reverence for the word of 
this Roman Catholic prelate is in curious contrast with 
his suspicion of the Anglican Archdeacon Cunningham, 
whom he introduces as c a staunch enemy of Presby- 
terianism (Aspects, p. 89), so that we too may be on our 
guard. But we are not given the slightest hint that the 
Bishop of Angelopolis was other than a calm, impar 
tial critic of the Jesuits, with no personal reasons for 
blackening their reputation. However, we shall come 
back to His Lordship in due course. 

Continuing in his own name, Dr. Robertson says: 
They [the Jesuits] had made the skill of the Church in 
moral affairs degenerate into probabilism and become 
arbitrary. Yet it is said that Calvinists were especially 
free in being emancipated from the Jewish law and the 
regulations of the Catholic Church. The Jesuits, more 
over, practised what they preached. What other order, 
asked the Bishop of Angelopolis, had carried on a bank 
ing business in the Church of God, made loans for 
profit [note by Dr. Robertson: "The answer to this 
question is many others "], held butcher and other 
shops in their dwellings ? What other religion, he asked, 
had ever been involved in a bankruptcy, or covered 
practically all the world with its commerce by sea and 
land, and with commercial contracts? At this point 
another Bishop is introduced, both himself and his 
diocese nameless. He says that the Genoese knew 
nothing in comparison with the Jesuits about exchange 
and re-exchange . Taking up the story personally, 
Dr. Robertson continues: If we may believe the tales 

20 Indictment of Jesuits 

which are told [in La Morale pratique des Jesuites], the 
Jesuit foreign missions were not to be distinguished from 
establishments for commercial exploitation we are 
told of their attempts to monopolize the pearl-fisheries 
in Cochin, of their attempts to get all the trade, all the 
transport and banking facilities in Cartagena, Quito, 
Onda, Mompox and, in fact, all South America into 
their own hands. In Seville the Jesuit College even 
underwent a bankruptcy caused by trading losses. . . . 
This raised a clamour through the countryside [here 
enters Angelopolis again], . . . The religion of the 
Jesuits was essentially practical. They gained their 
experience of practical affairs not merely through the 
confessional but also by actual engagement in business 
in many cases. They were always informed about com 
mercial needs, and always willing to take them into 
account in giving opinions in cases of conscience. In 
this they contrasted violently with the less adaptable 
Calvinists. The argument that Calvinism relaxed the 
discipline of the Christian in his conduct of commercial 
affairs is untrue. Jesuitry relaxed this discipline more 
than any other branch of religion (Aspects, pp. 107-10) . 
Towards the end of his indictment Dr. Robertson 
adds a lengthy note (Aspects, p. 109, n. 2). There he 
writes: These examples of the unrestrained speculative 
element which the Jesuits introduced into their own 
affairs are admittedly [this is the first time he has given 
the slightest hint] drawn from Jansenist sources, con 
cerned to paint the Jesuits in as dark colours as possible. 


where I have quoted Jesuit opinions from Jansenist 

Indictment of Jesuits 21 

sources it will be found that I have not allowed any 
Jansenist exaggerations to enter. It will be found that 
the opinion is justly attributed to the Jesuits by referring 
to the writer concerned [which Dr. Robertson did, or 
probably did, in the case of exactly one writer, Pirot], 
or as a rule to such a writer as Escobar [whom Dr. 
Robertson never looked up at all]. There is more of 
this note, one sentence of which I have put in capitals, 
but we may leave it for the present. Dr. Robertson, as 
has been seen, draws practically all his material from 
second-hand sources and principally from the two 
anonymous collections entitled La Theologie morale des 
Jesuites and La Morale pratique des Jesuites. The only 
way to determine whether these volumes were worthy 
of his credit is to inquire into their history. 




ALMOST from the time of their establishment in 
_L\. France the Jesuits had been looked upon with great 
suspicion by the University of Paris and its Theological 
Faculty, the Sorbonne. The Sorbonne, unlike the 
Parlement, had not been traditionally Gallican in its 
views, but the Jesuits soon changed all that. Nous 
croyons, en efFet , writes the best authority on the sub 
ject, que la rivalite entre deux celebres institutions, 
rUniversite et la Compagnie de Jesus, n est pas 
etrangere a 1 adoption par la Faculte de la theorie 
nouvelle (independance politique des rois a Pegard des 
papes dans son sens le plus absolu) : qu elle y contribua 
meme, au contraire, plus que tout autre facteur. L Uni- 
versite comprit vite quel danger faisait courir a son 
prestige seculaire une congregation qui mettait parrni 
ses principaux moyens d apostolat l instruction de la 
jeunesse, et dont la concurrence devenait de jour en 
jour plus redoutable. Elle lutta centre elle de toutes ses 
forces et par tous les moyens. 1 Par tons Us moyens! One 
of the means was to employ the services of the illustrious 
advocate, Antoine Arnauld, to petition for the expul 
sion of the Jesuits from France. In his famous plaidoyer 
before the Parlement of Paris in 1594, Arnauld spoke 
as follows, apostrophizing the spirit of Henri III, who 
had been assassinated five years earlier: 

Mon grand Prince . . . assiste-moi en cette cause, et, me 
representant continuellement devant les yeux ta chemise 

1 Martin, Le Gallicanisme politique et le clerge de France, Paris, 1929, pp. 89-90. 

The Lineage of a Libel 23 

toute sanglante, donne-moi la force et la vigueur de faire 
sentir a tous tes sujets la douleur, la haine et 1 indignation 
qu ils doivent porter a ces Jesuites. . . . Quelle langue, quelle 
voix pourroit suffire pour exprimer les conseils secrets, les 
conjurations plus horribles que celle des Bacchanales, plus 
dangereuses que celle de Catalina, qui ont ete tenues dans 
leur college rue Saint-Jacques, et dans leur eglise rue Saint- 
Antoine? . . .* 

Eight years later when there was question of allowing 
the banished Jesuits to return, the same Arnauld sprang 
to arms once more with his Franc et veritable discours au 
roi, a manifesto of undiluted absolutism. To prove how 
dangerous it would be to re-establish the Jesuits in 
France, he shows by a whole anthology of texts from 
their writings, especially the writings of le sieur 
Bellarmin , that they are the worst enemies in the world 
of the sacred doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. 2 

Jesuit writers were certainly very prolific and, to the 
joy of the Sorbonne and other foes, not always discreet. 
Traites ou pamphlets , says Dr. Martin, in the work 
cited above, le Parlement et la Faculte lisaient tous ces 
ecrits a la loupe. Of course, the microscope revealed 
many an unguarded passage which could be interpreted 
as derogatory to the absolute power of kings, and then 
there followed the inevitable censure. 

But the Jesuits provided their antagonists with an 
even happier hunting-ground than the field of ecclesi 
astical and political theory. As practical moralists they 
were very much to the fore and very productive, for the 
simple reason that a great part of their work lay in the 
confessional munus nostri Instituti valde proprium , 

1 At this point, Sainte-Beuve, the apologist of Port-Royal, who reproduces 
the passage, breaks off with a grimace: II faut s arreter: on en sourit. Port- 
Royal, aieme ed., Paris, 1860, t. i, p. 73. 

2 The Discours is analysed by Dr. Martin, I.e., pp. 101-9. 

24 The Lineage of a Libel 

as their Founder had written in his Constitutions. But 
though they produced a vast number of books discussing 
cases of conscience, similar to the Confessionalia and other 
such works which had been common since the Middle 
Ages, it is advisable, lest we lose our sense of proportion, 
to keep in mind a few other important facts. The tenth 
volume of Sommervogel s Bibliotheque des ecrwains de la 
Compagnie de Jesus arranges the vast number of works, 
entered in the previous volumes, under the various 
headings of science, mathematics, scripture, poetry, 
&c. Moral theology takes up thirty columns of titles, 
but books of sermons and ascetical theology require no 
fewer than 335 columns to accommodate them. In 
other words, there were ten Jesuits writing to make 
people perfect Christians by the practice of the Evan 
gelical Counsels for one Jesuit writing to trace the limits 
of duty according to the precepts of the decalogue. 1 

Again, the moral theologians were very far from 
thinking that their minimum requirements constituted 
an adequate rule of life for any Christian. They were 
not writing for the world at large, but for confessors, and 
solely with a view to the confessional. They knew and 
insisted that in his quality of physician and guide the 
confessor must not allow his penitents to install them 
selves deliberately on the frontier between the permitted 
and the forbidden , but they knew, too, that in his 
quality of judge he had a strict obligation to be aware 
of the exact import of the laws of God which nothing 
could authorize him to make more severe or binding 
than God intended. Nevertheless, it is quite true and 
very regrettable that some Jesuits of the 10 per cent, 
who wrote on moral theology went too far in making 

1 Sommervogel, l.c. } vol. x (1909), cols. 190-220, 229-564. 

The Lineage of a Libel 25 

things easy for the penitent, so laying themselves open 
to a well-grounded charge of speculative laxity. But 
they were neither so many nor nearly so lax as a hoary 
old legend would have us believe, and the two of them 
who figure as Pascal s principal victims, Escobar and 
Bauny, were men of almost excessive austerity in their 
private lives. 

In the sphere of dogmatic theology, too, the Jesuits 
won for themselves no little eminence. Two of them, 
Laynez and Salmeron, were among the most distin 
guished theologians of the Council of Trent, and their 
brother in religion, Cardinal de Lugo, was esteemed by 
a good authority, St. Alphonsus Liguori, himself a 
Doctor of the Catholic Church, as the greatest of all 
theologians after St. Thomas. One notable character 
istic of Jesuit theology in general is its special concern to 
defend the fortress of the human will so sorely be 
leaguered of old by Lutherans and Calvinists. St. Igna 
tius had laid this charge upon his sons in his Spiritual 
Exercises, and with filial loyalty they have never for 
gotten it. 

Within the Catholic Church the first set attack on 
the freedom of the human will in modern times was 
engineered by Dr. Michael de Bay or Baius, Chan 
cellor of the University of Louvain towards the close of 
the sixteenth century. Baianism, which included the 
aristocratic doctrine of divine Providence common to 
Puritanism and all forms of Calvinism that Christ did 
not die for all men and that numbers of men, strive how 
they may, are predestined to damnation, found in 
Leonard Lessius and his brethren of Louvain its most 
determined and indefatigable antagonists. As a large 
number of the Louvain doctors sided with their Chan- 

s6 The Lineage of a Libel 

cellor, the Jesuits by no means obtained a bloodless 
victory. The University, for reasons similar to those 
which inspired the University of Paris, declared war 
on their Order, using the same well-tried weapons 
of censure and ban that had proved effective in 

In the early seventeenth century, two of the Jesuits 
own pupils, Cornelius Jansen and his friend Duvergier 
de Hauranne, better known from his later title as the 
Abbe Saint- Cyran, made a solemn pact not only to 
defend the theories of Baius but to carry them a stage 
farther and to win the world for their acceptance. It 
was a tremendous ambition and was carried out with 
a skill and energy hardly believable. Those strange, 
austere men would lead the Church back to the stern 
discipline of her primitive ages in morals and to what 
they conceived to be the pure doctrine of St. Augustine 
in belief. For them, nothing of doctrine or practice 
beyond what they claimed to have prevailed in the 
fourth and fifth centuries had any validity. It was not 
a question of back to Christ but back to Augustine, the 
familiar cry of so many who have broken with the 
Church of Rome. 

With a view to better progress, the two friends divided 
their work, Jansen undertaking the theoretical exposi 
tion and defence of the opinions which they held in 
common, and Saint-Cyran devoting himself to securing 
acceptance for the practical reforms which followed as 
the corollary of those opinions. In the pursuit of his 
"Herculean task Jansen said that he had read all of 
St. Augustine s works, a library in themselves, ten times, 
and his works on grace, thirty times. Saint-Cyran, who 
was a splendid tactician, gained an ascendancy over the 

The Lineage of a Libel 27 

nuns of Port-Royal, where a daughter of Advocate 
Arnauld reigned as Superior, the famous Mere Ange- 
lique. No fewer than twelve of the Port-Royal com 
munity belonged to the Arnauld family, and there also 
was Pascal s sister, Jacqueline. On all these genuinely 
devout and greatly gifted women Saint-Cyran s spiri 
tual direction made a profound and lasting impression. 
He introduced among them a penitential spirit and 
discipline corresponding to that which he believed to 
have been the practice of the primitive Church and 
warned them ceaselessly to beware of going to Con 
fession unless they had perfect contrition or to Holy 
Communion unless they possessed the pure love of God. 
That meant, of course, that the frequentation of the 
Sacraments ceased practically altogether. It was Saint- 
Cyran s conviction that such abstinence was all to the 
good, for, in consequence of his theory of grace, he 
tended to minimize, nearly to vanishing-point, the 
effect of Holy Communion ex opere operate, and to exalt 
in proportion the importance of the human effort. It 
was a theory absolutely in contradiction to the teaching 
of the Council of Trent, of which the Jesuits were the 
chief practical propagators, but the Council of Trent 
did not mean much to Saint-Cyran. 

The Jesuits did mean much to him, though, so much 
that he conceived it to be a necessary part of his pro 
gramme to blacken and discredit them at every oppor 
tunity. While himself holding the heretical opinions of 
Wyclif on episcopal orders, he set up as the champion 
of the rights of bishops, which, he maintained, the 
Jesuits were bent on usurping. It is significant that the 
tracts in which he endeavoured to establish his charge 
were collected and republished in 1642 by the order 

28 The Lineage of a Libel 

and at the expense of the Clergy of France . * The Jesuits 
are treated there as ridicules pedants, qui, apres s etre 
accoutumes a regenter les enfants dans la poussiere et 
les tenebres des classes, s enivrent de leur souverainete 
imaginaire, et portent leur ambition jusqu a vouloir 
gouverner les vrais empires et s arroger le soin des rois . 
That was a very sore point with Jansenists and Galli- 
cans, that kings and princes should have been so 
strangely deluded as to choose Jesuits for their con 
fessors. 2 The tone of the book throughout is enough 
by itself to show that Bishop Zamet, who appointed 
Saint-Cyran to his post of spiritual director at Port- 
Royal, was not giving too much rein to his imagination 
when he testified publicly afterwards to having recog 
nized in him en diverses rencontres son esprit oultra- 
geux et violent, fort mal respectueux aux personnes qui 
font la moindre opposition a ses pensees . 3 Here lay the 
great crime of the Jesuits; they opposed Saint-Cyran s 
ideas, being obliged by their very rule to do all in their 
power to stimulate the practice of at least weekly or 
monthly Communion. On this point let us listen for 
one moment to St. Peter Canisius, writing to a young 
student of Louvain who had expressed concern at the 
revival of the habit of more frequent Communions that 
was then taking place, due in good measure to the 
efforts of the early Jesuits: 
You tell me that you do not like the custom of more 

1 Sainte-Beuve has some interesting remarks on the work, Port-Royal, aieme 
ed.j t. i, p. 325, n. 3. The Cleri Gallicani thought better of their action in 
1656 and condemned the Petri Aurelii opera, as the work was called. 

2 Whether the Jesuits particularly wanted such honours may be seen by 
consulting Fouqueray, Histoire de la Compagnie de Jesus, t. ii (Paris, 1913), 
pp. 14451; Braunsberger, BeatiP. Canisii epistulae, vol. iv, pp. 148-50, to give 
but two of a multitude of references. 

3 Cited by Fouqueray, I.e., t. v, seconde partie (1925), p. 403, from the 
Dupuy collection in the Bibliotheque Nationale. 

The Lineage of a Libel 29 

frequent Communion. You point out the dangers that may 
arise, quoting what St. Basil says in his treatise on Baptism. 
But our business is with young men serving their apprentice 
ship to learning. Surely they will not serve Christ the worse 
by more frequent Confessions and Communions? Where, I 
ask you in all earnestness, is to be found a more certain 
remedy for sickness of soul and a better spur to holy living 
than in Holy Communion? Again, where do studies thrive 
best, where are the cold and apathetic set on fire most easily, 
where are men of the world taught with least effort obedience 
and the fear, of God, where, finally, do married people learn 
best how to conquer and control the desires of the flesh? Is 
it not in those places where the practice of frequent Com 
munion flourishes? 

You will object, however, that we cannot be sure if com 
municants are rightly disposed. My answer is, what harm 
can the perversity of those who abuse the Holy Sacrament 
do to It or to us? Be careful, I beg of you, not to require too 
much from your brother. He is to be led on gradually in the 
way of holiness by the reception of this divine food, and by 
assiduous careful instruction. St. Augustine laid it down that 
it behoved all Christians to approach the Holy Table every 
Sunday, and that was the custom in the Church for many 
centuries. To be brief, for the worthy reception of this 
Sacrament it is enough that a man s will should be turned 
away from evil and resolved, in the strength of Christ, to 
pursue virtue. What would you answer if I were to ask you 
which is the better course to abstain from Communion 
through humility, or to approach It out of loving confidence 
in God? The man who partakes of the Body and Blood of 
Christ floods with new light the temple of his heart, strengthens 
his power of doing good, fortifies his soul against every evil, 
establishes himself in unfeigned love, and weakens and casts 
off the last relics of his sins. . . . Good-bye, and pray for me, 
a poor fellow with more words than wisdom. 1 
Those lines were written in August, 1546, some time 

1 Braunsberger, l.c. s vol. i, pp. 208-9. 

3o The Lineage of a Libel 

before the Council of Trent raised its voice on the sub 
ject. When it did speak, it spoke exactly in St. Peter s 
sense, and exactly contrary to Saint-Cyran s ideas. 

Turning now to Jansen, busy on his huge treatise, 
we find that he too considered the Jesuits to be his 
dearest enemies. In his letters to Saint-Cyran their 
Society figures as le Satan romaniste , and he says in 
one place with an air of satisfaction: II me semble que 
dans le dernier livre j ai bien donne sur les doigts aux 
Jesuites. He certainly had, for in his Augustinus, the 
great bible of Jansenism, they figure as modern pela 
gians or semi-pelagians who seek novelty, renown, 
glory, flattery; who pretend to holiness and are nothing 
but boasters and hypocrites; who pursue riches under 
cover of poverty; who have great esteem for profane 
knowledge and are the apes of Aristotle in their abuse 
of the syllogism; who have an itch to write many works 
but despise the works of other men and travesty their 
thought, attributing to them what they never set down; 
who simulate holiness but are found to be full of vices 
and shameful debauchery; who are as deceitful as foxes 
and make a trade of lies, equivocations, and mental 
restrictions. 1 

If it meant an opportunity of doing the Jesuits 
damage Jansen was even willing to forgo work on his 
book temporarily, which involved a considerable sacri 
fice for a man so wedded to his pen. Thus, he undertook 
a mission to Spain to defend the rights of the Louvain 
doctors against them when they desired to start a course 

1 Augustinus, sen doctrina Sancti Augustini de humanae naturae sanitate aegritudine 
medicina, adversus Pelagianos et Massilienses, vol. i (Rouen, 1643), lib. vi, cc. xix 
xxiv. By the Pelagians and men of Marseilles in this title Jansen meant 
first and foremost the Jesuits, especially Suarez and Molina, two great defenders 
of the freedom of the human will under the action of divine grace. 

The Lineage of a Libel 3 1 

of philosophy at their college, contrary to the privileges 
of the University. He died in 1638, two years before the 
Augustinuswas printed with great secrecy by hisLouvain 
friends. A week after his death, Saint-Cyran was thrown 
into prison by Richelieu, and his informal brotherhood 
of Solitaries at Port-Royal had to disband. 

That might have seemed the end of their ambitions, 
but sometimes a man in his grave can be more powerful 
for good or evil than when he moved among the living. 
In 1641 the Augustinus was reprinted at Paris and 
came out fortified with enthusiastic approbations from 
five doctors of the Sorbonne. Thus was the veil of 
secrecy withdrawn and Jansenism made an issue which 
the authorities could not disregard. The book was 
promptly forbidden by Urban VIII, together with the 
theses which the Louvain Jesuits had drawn up in 
answer to it, but the Louvain secular theologians, 
rallying to the defence of Jansen s theories, made light 
of the Pope s prohibition and so provoked the Bull, In 
eminent^ where it was stated that the Augustinus contained 
propositions of Baius already condemned. At this junc 
ture, the beginning of the year 1643, there came on the 
scene a portentous figure, the greatest of all Jansenist de 
fenders and propagandists, Maitre Arnauld s youngest 
son, Antoine, Doctor of the Sorbonne. In his Observa 
tions contre la bulle pretendue, this illustrious man s pre 
judice against the Jesuits, learned both from his father 
according to the flesh and from his spiritual father, 
Saint-Cyran, led him so far as to say that they had 
actually forged the Bull, though their own theses were 
condemned 1 in it! A short resume of these theses will 

1 Not as unorthodox, as they contained nothing but the teaching of the 
Church, but because they infringed an order of Pope Paul V that books on 
grace were not to be published without the express sanction of the Inquisition. 

32 The Lineage of a Libel 

show what the Jesuits stood for as against Jansen and 
his party: (i) Though children who die without bap 
tism are deprived of the vision of God, they will not be 
punished with the pain of sense. (2) God truly desires 
to save all men and grants to all sufficient graces for 
salvation. (3) Jesus Christ died for all men in this sense 
that He desired His death to be truly advantageous to 
all. (4) Jesus prayed for the salvation of all men without 
exception. (5) For an action to be free, it is necessary 
that the will should be able to do or not to do it at the 
moment when all the requisite conditions for action are 
present. (6) There is no commandment of God impos 
sible for man to keep. (7) God would be a tyrant if He 
made man responsible for the violation of precepts 
which it was impossible for him to carry out. (8) In 
certain cases, invincible ignorance excuses entirely from 
responsibility. (9) Not all the actions of unbelievers are 
sins, nor were all the virtues of the philosophers vices. 
(10) The love of God, considered as manifested in His 
goodness towards us, though less perfect than charity, 
is nevertheless licit, and can, like the fear of Hell, 
constitute a legitimate motive for imperfect contrition, 
or attrition, (i i) Attrition suffices in the Sacrament of 
Penance for the remission of sins. 

Jansen s pitiless, nightmare creed taught the oppo 
site of all these doctrines. It closed the gates of God s 
mercy to all but a select coterie, the mignons of Divine 
Providence who, do what they listed, could not fail of 
Heaven, any more than the others, the poor scape-goats 
of eternity, could by even the most desperate efforts 
escape the fires of Hell. Christ died for all men, of course. 
St. Paul had said that, but what he meant was that 
Christ had died for all classes and conditions of men, 

The Lineage of a Libel 33 

not for all the individual persons in each class. So the 
horrible propositions roll out, one after another, in those 
sombre tomes, where it is very difficult to descry e la 
beaute sinon dantesque du moins miltonienne attri 
buted to them by Saint-Beuve. Milton, at any rate, 
does not make God out to be a monster of injustice and 

Hardly less forbidding, in spite of the moral fervour 
that glows in it, was Arnauld s long French treatise, 
De lafrequente communion, which appeared in 1643. ^ s 
preface, longer even than one of Bernard Shaw s, ex 
plains the circumstances under which the book came to 
be written. The Marquise de Sable had for her director 
the Jesuit Pere de Sesmaisons. Though a society lady, 
she went to Holy Communion at least once a month and 
did not hesitate to take her part in balls, even on days 
when she had been to the Altar. Her friend the Prin- 
cesse de Guemene, who had Saint-Cyran for her guide, 
was shocked by such conduct. The two ladies talked it 
over, whereupon the Marquise submitted to Pere de Ses 
maisons the objections of the Princesse, together with 
a little treatise of Saint-Cyran bearing upon the point 
in dispute. Sesmaisons then composed a little treatise 
of his own, calling it Question, s il est meilleur de com- 
munier souvent ou rarement? In this he advocated weekly 
Communion, very much on the principles now ac 
cepted by all Catholics in accordance with the teachings 
of Pope Pius X. The Marquise, highly pleased with 
herself, no doubt, ran off to show her defence to the 
Princesse, who promptly took it to Saint-Cyran. Saint- 
Cyran was indignant but left the vindication of his 
theories to the abler pen of Antoine Arnauld. Hence 
the book that did more than any other book to propa- 

34 The Lineage of a Libel 

gate Jansenism in France, and hence a long and noisy 
war of pamphlets, brochures, treatises, which reverbe 
rated down the centuries until, in our own time, Pope 
Pius X finally ruled out the erroneous discipline of 
Holy Communion advocated by the Jansenists. 

In 1643, however, the Jesuit view of the Christian 
life did not commend itself to everybody, and Arnauld s 
book came on the scene duly munitioned with the warm 
approval of sixteen bishops and twenty doctors of the 
Sorbonne. People overlooked the fact that a hundred 
bishops and two hundred doctors of the Sorbonne 
either remained silent or disapproved of the book. In 
Paris, at the time, there was a well-known Jesuit spiri 
tual writer and preacher named Jacques Nouet. He 
judged, and he was right in judging, as St. Vincent de 
Paul bore sorrowful witness, that Arnauld s work must 
inevitably have the effect of withdrawing people from 
the Sacraments altogether, so, greatly daring, and 
no doubt unwisely, he attacked and refuted it from 
the pulpit. Tableau! The sixteen approving prelates, 
headed by the Archbishop of Sens, later a notable 
Jansenist, fulminated against him as though he had 
been some dangerous heresiarch, and compelled him 
to read on his knees in their presence a retractation of 
his sermons. 1 Thus did Port-Royal, to its exceeding 
joy, find a phalanx of bishops on its side, at least in its 
battles against the Jesuits. 

Nor must we forget the University of Paris. Quite 
apart from the Jansenist debate, the Paris doctors and 
masters had their own private bone to pick with the good 

1 The fairest and most temperate judgement that was passed on La Frequente 
Communion came from the pen of a representative contemporary Jesuit, Cardinal 
de Lugo. It is reproduced in Laemmer s Mektematum Romanorum mantissa, 
Ratisbon, 1875, pp. 391-4. 

The Lineage of a Libel 35 

Fathers. For one thing, in the teeth of the most deter 
mined opposition on their part, the Jesuits had obtained 
royal permission to re-open their College of Glermont 
in 1 6 1 8. Eight years later came the doctors first oppor 
tunity for a really satisfying revenge. To use such a 
term is not in the least to suggest that the Jesuits were 
all in the right and the doctors all in the wrong. The 
best way to put it is to say that it was a quarrel between 
two parties of human beings, neither of which had been 
exempted from the frailties common to humanity. In 
those days the Jesuits generally held a theory to the 
effect that the Pope possessed an indirect power of 
jurisdiction over secular rulers, meaning that it was 
within his competence to interfere if the action or 
legislation of Icing or prince should trench on the domain 
of faith or morals. This theory seemed right and reason 
able to most theologians outside France, but in France 
it was accounted so villainous that the works in which 
its two greatest champions, Bellarmine and Suarez, 
expounded it were condemned to be burnt publicly in 
Paris by the common executioner. The Paris doctors 
contended that the theory was tantamount to a justifica 
tion of regicide, which no one with the least sense of 
fairness would be prepared to admit. However, it was 
the contention that mattered and not the truth, so one 
of the superiors of the unfortunate Jesuits in Paris wrote 
to the Provincials of Italy and Spain begging them to 
keep their theologians in restraint. Tf in future , he 
said, even one single Jesuit should write anything of 
this sort, behold us once again, exiles from France, and, 
I fear, for good. 1 The General of the Jesuits, Claude 
Acquaviva, issued a terribly stringent prohibition 

1 Martin, I.e., p. go. 

36 The Lineage of a Libel 

against any of his subjects daring to suggest, even in 
private conversation, that it might ever be lawful under 
any conceivable circumstances to remove a tyrant by 
violent means. The order was issued in virtue of Holy 
Obedience which involved mortal sin for its trans 
gressor and he was declared further to incur ex 
communication, suspension, disqualification for all 
offices, and other penalties. 1 

That document seems plain enough, but the Gallicans 
would have none of it. The Jesuits taught the theory of 
the Pope s indirect temporal power and therefore the 
Jesuits taught the lawfulness of regicide. On February 6, 
1626, a Paris bookseller received a consignment of his 
wares from Rome. As he opened the box, Pere de la 
Tour, Superior of the Maison de Saint-Louis, entered 
the shop and noticed six copies of a new treatise by the 
Roman Jesuit Antonio Santarelli entitled: Tractatus de 
haeresi, schismate, apostasia, sollicitatione in sacramento paeni- 
tentiae, et depotestate Romani Pontificis in his delictispuniendis. 
The last words, the power of the Pope to punish these 
offences , at once made him uneasy. He opened a copy 
and began to read hastily a chapter headed The power 
of the Pope to punish heretical princes . It was as he 
feared, so he purchased the whole six copies, requested 
the bookseller to send them to the Maison Saint-Louis, 
and himself rushed off to tell his Provincial, the famous 
Pere Coton, of his discovery. Coton, the King s con 
fessor, knew even better than de la Tour what a find 
this work would be for the Parlement and the Sorbonne. 
He sent a messenger immediately for the books but, to 
his intense anxiety, the man returned with only five. 

1 The Latin text is given by Pachtler, Ratio Studiorum et Institutiones Scholasticae 
Societatis Jesu, vol. iii (Berlin, 1890), p. 47. 

The Lineage of a Libel 37 

Pere Goton then repaired to the bookseller, who told 
him that a doctor of the Sorbonne had entered his shop 
shortly after the departure of Pere de la Tour and, 
noticing the six volumes, asked if he might have the loan 
of one for a few hours. By good fortune this doctor s 
brother was a Jesuit student at Clermont. That same 
evening the young religious was sent to the doctor s 
house. Helas, mon frere, exclaimed the latter, c je sqais 
bien ce qui vous emene icy. Voila un livre qui est capable 
de vous ruiner entierement. The young Jesuit replied 
eagerly that it was the very thing he had come for, and 
implored his brother to give him the book and not to say 
a word about it. The doctor agreed willingly, but 
remarked that, while he was studying the volume, one 
of his confreres of the Sorbonne, very hostile to the 
Jesuits, had paid him a visit and hastily jotted down 
some passages in a note-book. Within twenty-four hours 
copies of the passages were in circulation among mem 
bers of the University, the Parlement, and even the 
Court. Our enemies , wrote one of the Jesuits con 
cerned, went off in their hundreds to the shops of the 
booksellers demanding Antonius Santarellus, De Omni- 
potentia Pontificis. 

As the book was not procurable in Paris, a special 
messenger was sent to Lyons for a copy which was put 
at once in the hands of a certain Dr. Filesac, notoriously 
hostile to the Jesuits. This man s one idea in making 
his selection of passages was to furnish the Parlement 
with as strong a weapon as possible. All modifying 
clauses and other explanations were omitted. Yet even 
as thus travestied the work was unobjectionable to any 
but the out and out Gallicans. It bore the Imprimatur 
of the Dominican Master of the Sacred Palace, Rome, 

38 The Lineage of a Libel 

and the approbation of another Dominican, a professor 
of theology, to the following effect: I have read the 
Tractatus de Haeresi, Schismate, &c., with the greatest 
attention and have found therein nothing contrary to 
sound faith or good morals. Moreover, this work ap 
pears to me full of erudition and composed with remark 
able intelligence. The author rests his doctrine very 
appropriately on the authority of illustrious writers and 
on opinions of great weight. I therefore judge that this 
book is very worthy of publication for the good and 
advantage of great numbers. 

Nevertheless, the Paris Jesuits were compelled under 
threat of expulsion from France to sign a declaration 
disavowing Santarelli, and the book itself was publicly 
delivered to the flames. It was only the death of Pere 
Goton, whom the King and Queen loved, that pre 
vented worse consequences. The Parlement having 
vented its spleen, it became the turn of the Sorbonne 
doctors, who issued a resounding censure which may be 
read in La Theologie morale des Jesuites (iBsg). 1 

Seventeen years after the Santarelli incident the 
Jesuits of Glermont had the effrontery to demand that 
their students should be admitted to stand for the 
University s degrees. The Rector of the University, 
Louis Gorin de Saint-Amour, who afterwards became 
a leader among the Jansenists and their great champion 
in Rome, turned at this crisis to Dr. Frangois Hallier, 
defenseur attitre du clerge centre les Jesuites . Accord 
ing to an authority who shows anything but a desire 
to justify the opponents of Antoine Arnauld, those two 
men avaient en commun une haine profonde centre 

1 Both Martin and Fouqueray deal with the Santarelli affair at great length 
and most interestingly. Martin, Le Gallicanisme politique, pp. 163-244; Fou 
queray, Histoire de la Compagnie de Jesus en France, t. iv (1925), pp. 141-90. 

The Lineage of a Libel 39 

les Jesuites 5 . 1 They enrolled in the service of the 
University a young canon of Beauvais named Godefroy 
Hermant, who promptly came out with two little 
volumes showing up the incapacity of the Jesuits as 
professors, the faults of their teaching, their sham zeal 
which was nothing but self-interest, and the danger of 
their doctrines for Church, State, and Christian souls 
in general. A entendre les discours emportes de 
Hermant , writes the authority referred to above, la 
Compagnie de Jesus n etait qu un ramassis d ignorants, 
de fourbes, d heretiques, de revolutionnaires. 2 Five 
weeks later Hermant had another book ready: Verites 
academiques en refutation des prejuges populaires dont les 
Jesuites se servent contre I Universite de Paris. This refutation 
of popular prejudice consisted in showing that the Jesuit 
professors were bad grammarians and bombastic rhetori 
cians, while as for their preaching it was something to 
make a cat laugh. But Hermant had a sharper weapon 
than mere ridicule in reserve. The moral theology of the 
Jesuits is a poison sucre qui corrompt les esprits en les 
flattant , and to it is due before all things the depravity 
of the age. The one idea of the Jesuit moralists is to 
accommodate the law of God to the corruption and 
vicious habits of the century, nor are they ever reluc 
tant to betray the truth in order to serve their politics. 3 
This was the first public denunciation of la morale 
relachee , and it made a great stir. Emboldened by the 
success of their effort, the University, qui confondait 
souvent le Saint-Siege et la Compagnie dans ses 
attaques passionees , 4 decided to seek the protection 
of the Pope. The idea first occurred to Hallier, who 

1 Albert de Meyer, Les Premieres Controversesjanse nistes en France, Louvain, 1917* 
p. 376. 2 de Meyer, I.e., p. 377. 

3 Passage cited by de Meyer, I.e., p. 378. 4 de Meyer, I.e., p. 378. 

40 The Lineage of a Libel 

suggested that Saint-Amour should write to Urban 
VIII. The following are some lines from his letter: 

Que Votre Saintete ne nous soupgonne pas d un esprit 
d envie ni du desir de nous emporter centre eux a la medi- 
sance dans une occasion ou la purete de la doctrine chre- 
tienne et de la verite ecclesiastique est visiblement exposee 
a un si grand peril. . . . 

Qu elle nous permette, s il lui plait, de toucher delicate- 
ment des plaies qui coulent encore et qui sont toujours 
sanglantes, et de deplorer ces nouveautes des jesuites dont 
nous promettons de vous donner pour temoins les yeux de 
toute 1 Europe. Comme ils ont des sentiments plus conformes 
a la chair qu a Jesus-Christ, et qu oubliant la simplicite 
chretienne, ils detournent 1 industrie de leurs esprits a des 
subtilites politiques, quelles tragedies ne font-ils pas tous les 
jours, quels tumultes n excitent-ils point? Quelles armes, 
quels flambeaux funestes ne mettent-ils point entre les mains 
des profanes? Ils remplissent la theologie scholastique de 
nouveaux dogmes par je ne sais quelle demangeaison de 
publier des maximes extraordinaires, et il n y a presque 
point de partie dans tout le corps de cette espece de theologie 
qu ils n aient entrepris ou de mutiler entierement ou de 
corrompre par le fard et le deguisement de la nouveaute. 

Est-ce qu ils ont etc plus reserves et plus retenus par les 
disputes qu ils ont faites touchant la morale? Au contraire, 
ils manient comme il leur plait les dogmes les plus importants 
comme si c etait une cire molle a qui Ton fait prendre toutes 
les formes qu on veut; ils rendent un ministere honteux a la 
paresse et au degout des peuples dont ils favorisent les 
inclinations; ils attribuent faussement 1 innocence aux plus 
grand crimes et leur promettent 1 impunite par une flatterie 
dangereuse et une cruelle misericorde. C est par ces artifices 
qu ils s efforcent d acquerir de la reputation a leur societe 
qui a une si grande demangeaison d ecrire. 1 

1 Reproduced by de Meyer, I.e., p. 379, from Jourdain s Histoire de I Uni- 
versite de Paris. 

The Lineage of a Libel 41 

Ten years later the writer of this letter, whom the 
novelties of the Jesuits in the domain of scholastic 
theology so greatly grieved, was in Rome as the special 
delegate of Port-Royal to defend might and main the 
famous Five Propositions in which the majority of the 
bishops of France had summed up and condemned 
the errors of Jansenism. There, too, by a piquant turn 
of fate, was his former friend and ally, Hallier, entirely 
converted to the side of the Jesuits and more eager than 
they or anybody to see the Propositions anathematized. 1 

For the present, however, Hallier is the Jesuits 
unappeasable foe. In his first Apologie pour V Universite 
Hermant had sought to frighten the Fathers by telling 
them that a Theologia moralis Societatis Jesu was in 
preparation, for, as de Meyer remarks, les chefs du 
parti universitaire savaient trop bien que les erreurs 
de certains jesuites leur fournissaient de precieuses 
armes dont ils pouvaient se servir dans leur ceuvre de 
combat . 2 Hallier himself was secretly preparing the 
materials, assisted by the diligence and inherited antho- 
logical ability of Antoine Arnauld. Towards the end 
of August, 1643, there appeared anonymously a thin 
octavo volume entitled Theologie morale des Jesuiles. 
Extraict fidellement de leurs limes. Thus, in circumstances 
that could hardly be deemed favourable to impartiality, 
was born the little book which, when it had grown up 
and waxed fat by 1659 on a multitude of other assaults 
on the Jesuits, provided Dr. H. M. Robertson in 1933 
with material to prove them the begetters or fosterers 
of a capitalist mentality. 

The book in its primitive form contained upwards of 

1 Pastor, Geschichte der Papste, vol. xiv, part i (1929), pp. 194-205. 

2 L.c., p. 381. 

42 The Lineage of a Libel 

a hundred propositions scandaleuses , collected by 
Arnauld. He performed his labour of love with remark 
able skill, exploiting to the full the fifth edition of Pere 
fitienne Bauny s Somme despeches, which had been placed 
on the Index in 1 640. It did not worry him in the least 
that Bauny had since publicly disavowed some of his 
objectionable propositions and that after Rome s con 
demnation a new sixth edition of his book had been 
brought out with the censured theories altogether 
omitted. The Jansenists liked to harp on the fact that 
the Somme was in French, seeing in this circumstance a 
design of the Jesuits to get at the common people. But 
the full title of the book shows exactly for whom it was 
intended: Somme des peches qui se commettent en 
tous etats; de leurs conditions et qualites . . . et en quelle 
fa$on le confesseur doit interroger son penitent. 

Four Jesuits wrote answers to La Theologie morale, but 
Arnauld and his allies, who were far more skilful in that 
kind of controversy, turned their efforts to ridicule. 
Though Bauny was in fact a very poor specimen of a 
moral theologian and an abominably involved writer, 
they cleverly pretended that he represented the general 
doctrines of the Jesuits better than Suarez, de Lugo, 
Vasquez, Lessius, Laymann, or anybody else. Indeed, 
the poor man became a sort of mascot a rebours with the 

Another who at this very time presented them with 
a glorious opportunity for an outcry was Pere Hereau, 
Professor of Cases of Conscience at the College of 
Clermont. In August, 1643, the month when appeared 
La Theologie morale, Godefroy Hermant secured posses 
sion of two theme-books containing students notes on 
the cases propounded by Pere Hereau. Most of them 

The Lineage of a Libel 43 

dealt with the question of a gentleman s honour and 
the lengths to which he could go in defence of it. Honour 
was at that time little less than a religion in Spain and 
France, and Hereau, arguing on the principle that if a 
man may kill another who attacks him in order to save 
his life, inclined to the belief that he might also kill 
another who attacked his honour, which he valued as 
much as his life. The actual case he propounded was 
this: Scavoir, situ tasches de detracter de mon nom par 
fausses accusations vers un Prince, un Juge, ou des gens 
d honneur, et que je ne puisse en aucune fac,on detour- 
ner cette perte de ma renommee, sinon en te tuant 
clandestinement et en cachette, si je le puis faire licite- 
ment? He does not answer for himself but says, Bannes 
Fasseure, Quaest. 64, Art. 7, Doute 4 , Banes being the 
famous Dominican theologian ofpraedeterminatiopkysica, 
who had been no more fond of Jesuits, though for very 
different reasons, than was Antoine Arnauld. But that 
case was not the one that chiefly interested the Univer 
sity doctors. Immediately after it came this one in 
Latin: Whether it be lawful for any one to kill a legiti 
mate ruler who abuses his authority to the ruin of the 
people. What Hereau actually said on this subject we 
do not know, as the doctors did not reproduce his words. 
They wrote instead: II traite subtilement et malicieuse- 
ment la doctrine commune aux theologiens de sa Societe 
[the theory of the Pope s indirect power] centre la 
seurete de la vie des Roys et Princes souverains, lesquels 
pour plusieurs et divers pretextes elle degrade, dethrone, 
et prive de leurs Royaumes et Estats, declarant qu ils 
ne sont point ou ne sont plus Roys ny Princes souverains. 
Gar, bien qu il reponde a la question cy-dessus, enniant 
que cela soit permis, il faut remarquer, &c. There 

44 The Lineage of a Libel 

follows a page of remarks to prove that, though the 
Father explicitly denied that it is ever lawful for any one 
to kill a tyrant, yet what he really intended to say was 
that it is lawful. Their two principal arguments are 
drawn from the fact that he mentions only legitimate 
rulers and therefore implies that it is licit to kill 
those whom the Jesuits do not consider to be such, and, 
secondly, he says that it is not lawful for any one, any 
individual, implying, of course, qu il est loisible et 
permis a quelques-uns de tuer celuy qui a autorite 
legitime de regner, et en abuse a la ruine du peuple ! 
On the strength of this monstrous disfigurement of 
Hereau s ideas, the good Sorbonne doctors had the 
grave satisfaction of seeing him publicly condemned 
and humiliated and his superiors severely reprimanded 
by the Parlement and Court. That catastrophe 
effectively shut the mouths of the Jesuits on the question 
of their students being allowed to stand for Univer 
sity degrees, and the doctors, happy in their victory, 
lost interest in Jesuit moral theologians till next they 
should have need of their services. 1 

As a contrast to the easy judgements of the Sorbonne 
doctors and their modern imitator, Dr. H. M. Robert 
son, we may close this chapter with some words of an 
historian whose authority to speak will hardly be ques 
tioned. Writing of the dawn of the reign of Louis XIV, 
M. Louis Madelin says: 

Void le regne des sages. En masse, le siecle restera sage. 
II a le gout de 1 autorite, de toutes les autorites, Dieu, le Roi, 

1 The whole story may be read in La Theologie morale des Jesuites (1659), 
seconde partie, pp. 178-85. Albert de Meyer is singularly unjust to Hereau 
when he says: Mais le Pere Hereau avait aussi tolere, sous certaines conditions, 
le regicide (Les premieres contravenes jansenistes en France, p. 385). He did no such 
thing, as anybody may see at once by glancing at the texts in La Theologie 

The Lineage of a Libel 45 

la Tradition, la Loi, la Regie . L 3 education a forme ce 
gout. Les Jesuites en sont les maitres. . . . Dans la seule 
province de Paris, 13,000 eleves par an se courbent sous la 
ferule, d ailleurs douce, 1 de la celebre Societe. Qu enseigne- 
t-elle? Une religion imperturbable s il s agit de Tame, et, 
s il s agit de 1 esprit, 1 antiquite grecque et latine, surtout la 
latine, mais une antiquite qui eUe aussi enseigne la regie. 

Ainsi, a 1 origine, deux sources de discipline: la chretienne 
et 1 antique. De cette education le siecle est sortie grave, 
prenant fort au serieux la vie et la mort. 2 

1 Contrast Dr. Robertson s authority, Antoine Arnauld: On a vu des 
enfants mourir entre leurs mains . . . sous les coups de fouet dans votre College 
de Clennont (Arnauld, (Euvres completes, t. xxx (Lausanne, 1775-83), p. 76). 

2 Cited by Fouqueray, I.e., vol. v, p. 463, from an article by Madelin in the 
Revue Universelle, February 15, 1924, p. 423. The same thesis is to be found 
splendidly worked out and sustained in a remarkable book, L Education morale 
dans les colleges de la Compagnie de Jesus en France sous Vancien regime (Paris, 1913), 
by Andre Schimberg, who was not a Jesuit nor in any way connected with the 
Society of Jesus. 




DURING the decade that followed the appearance of 
La Theologie morale, 1643-53, Jansenism had spread 
to all parts of Belgium and France and split both coun 
tries into two hostile camps. The Augustinus had stout 
defenders amongst the bishops and clergy of both coun 
tries, but in France the great majority of the hierarchy 
were opposed to it and eventually submitted five propo 
sitions, summing up Jansen s theories, to the judgement 
of the Holy See. The fifth proposition ran: It is semi- 
pelagianism to say that Jesus Christ died or shed His 
Blood for all men without exception. By a Constitution 
of May 31, 1653, PP e Innocent X condemned all five 
propositions as heretical and declared the fifth to be not 
only heretical but false, temerarious, scandalous, and, 
understood in the sense that Christ died only for the 
salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, con 
tumelious and derogatory to the Divine Goodness . 1 
With this particular condemnation the Jesuits had next 
to nothing to do. The initiative came from the Sorbonne 
and the French bishops, while in Rome, of the thirteen 
men appointed by the Pope to examine > the Five Propo 
sitions only one was a Jesuit, Sforza Pallavicini, the his 
torian of the Council of Trent. His judgement, inci 
dentally, was one of the most temperate pronounced, and 
he was balanced by two Dominicans and one Augus- 
tinian who defended the Five Propositions with great 
ardour. Despite all this, Saint-Amour, the envoy in 

1 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion Symbolorum (1928), n. 1096. 

The Lineage of a Libel 47 

Rome of Port-Royal and the pro-Jansenist bishops, gave 
out that the Jesuits were at the back of the condemna 
tion, though Cardinal Spada had assured him on oath 
that they had nothing whatever to do with it. 1 

Meantime, the indefatigable Arnauld had come out 
with a whole series of Apologies for the doctrines of 
Jansen, one of which ran to the astounding length of 
1,069 quarto pages. When, in spite of all his efforts, the 
doctrines were condemned, he invented the famous 
distinction of right and fact , which at once became 
the great refuge of his fellow Jansenists. While allowing 
that the Pope had the right to condemn the Five 
Propositions they denied the fact that Jansen had 
taught them in his book. They were, they said, the 
inventions of the Jesuits for the purpose of discrediting 
St. Augustine s doctrine of grace. For once in a way, 
nobody but themselves believed that tall story, and 
Arnauld soon found himself with his back to the wall, 
as the bishops united at Paris on March 9, 1654, and 
Pope Innocent on September 29 of the same year de 
clared emphatically that the Five Propositions were in 
the Augustinus. 

Then a famous incident happened. A cure of Saint- 
Sulpice, inspired by the saintly M. Olier, refused absolu 
tion to a prominent Jansenist, the Due de Liancourt. 
Arnauld at once protested in a Lettre d un docteur de Sor- 
bonne a unepersonne de condition, February 24, 1655, which 
drew no fewer than eight replies. Finally, on May 26, 
there appeared a Reponse from the Jesuit Pere Francois 
Annat, 2 confessor to the King, in which he declared that 

1 Pastor, "Geschichte der Pdpste, vol. xiv, part i (1929), pp. 2003. 

2 There is a story that this man s name was really Canard, which, being too 
dangerous to carry in that time of outrageous punning, he Latinized as Anna- 
tius, anas meaning a duck. 

48 The Lineage of a Libel 

the Jansenists were heretics, as they professed the 
theories of Calvin on the subject of grace. In July, 
Arnauld retorted with a Seconde Lettre a un due et pair de 
France, running to 254 pages. Therein he maintained 
the distinction of right and fact, and, to pulverize Annat s 
contention that the interior grace necessary for the 
human will to do the will of God never fails it in presence 
of temptation, he pointed to the denial of St. Peter as 
proof that indispensable grace is not always accorded 
to the just. This Seconde Lettre was denounced to the 
Sorbonne by the Syndic, Guyot. Now, the Sorbonne, 
as a judicial tribunal, was about equally divided on the 
question of Jansenism, but, according to Arnauld and 
his allies, the hostile half adopted the clever, unstatutory 
ruse of bringing in a contingent, forty strong, of friar- 
doctors to their assistance. 1 Thus fortified, they pro 
ceeded on January 14, 1656, to a condemnation of Ar 
nauld on the first point, the question whether the Five 
Propositions were in the Augustinus, by a majority of 130 
votes to 71, with 15 abstentions. A fortnight later, 
January 19, the same majority condemned Arnauld s 
doctrine of grace as impious, scandalous, and heretical. 
He and his adherents were given a fortnight in which 
to sign a form of retraction, the penalty for refusal being 
expulsion from the Sorbonne and the forfeiture of their 

It looked like the end for Arnauld. He had been 
repudiated by every tribunal, the Pope, the Hierarchy, 
the Sorbonne, the Parlement. There seemed to remain 

1 Though there does not appear to be a shred of evidence that the Jesuits 
had anything to do with the proceedings (and how could they, considering the 
attitude of the Sorbonne in their regard?) yet that ardent champion of Port- 
Royal, M. Gazier, sees Pere Annat at the back of the whole affair (Histoire 
generate du mouvementjanseniste, t. i (Paris, 1922), p. 101). 

The Lineage of a Libel 49 

only one court of appeal, public opinion, and to that, 
by a splendid piece of luck for himself, he was driven 
to turn. During the course of his trial, when he kept 
carefully hidden, he used secretly to visit Port-Royal 
des Champs with his two devoted friends, Nicole and 
Le Maitre. At a conference there one day, which in 
cluded Port-Royal s new and enthusiastic recruit, Blaise 
Pascal, a solitary asked Arnauld whether he was going 
to allow himself to be condemned like a child without 
letting the public at large know the facts of the case. 
Thus stimulated he set about the composition of yet 
another Apologie , which he proceeded to read aloud 
to his friends. They listened in silence and without 
showing any mark of approval. e je vois bien, said Ar 
nauld sadly, que vous ne trouvez pas cet ouvrage bon, 
et je crois que vous avez raison. Then, turning to Pas 
cal, he went on: c Mais vous qui etes jeune, vous devriez 
faire quelque chose. Little could he have dreamed how 
happily his suggestion was inspired. Pascal retired to 
his cell and came back after some hours with the first of 
the Lettres Provinciates. 1 

It is hardly necessary now to say anything about a 
classic so renowned, which put les objets les plus graves 
a la portee des societes les plus frivoles, et, prodiguant a 
pleine main le sel d une plaisanterie fine et amere, 
transformait en scenes comiques et amusantes des dis 
cussions qui jusqu alors avaient ete renfermees dans les 
formes serieuses de 1 ecole . As everybody knows, the 
first three Lettres were taken up practically entirely with 
the defence of Arnauld and an attempt to win over the 
Thomist theologians to his side against the hated 

1 Petitot, Collection de memoires relatifs a Vhistoire de France, t. xxxiii (Paris, 
1824), PP- 1 20-1. 


50 The Lineage of a Libel 

Molinists. Though they enjoyed a popular success 
rarely equalled in the history of literature, they failed 
in their main object, and Arnauld was degraded by the 
Sorbonne on February 15, six days after the publication 
of the third Lettre. 

At this moment Pascal quitted Port-Royal and came 
to live in Paris under an assumed name in a house oppo 
site the college of the Jesuits. Whether it was the view 
out of his window which gave him the idea, or the 
advice of his friends to turn from defence to attack, he 
began his fourth Lettre with the abrupt address: MON 
SIEUR, II n est rien tel que les Jesuites. Up to then he 
had referred to them only in their capacity of Molinists, 
but from the fourth Lettre to the sixteenth he consecrates 
all his matchless ability to the ridicule of their moral 
theology and ascetical teaching. Where did he obtain 
his material? Let us listen to one of the best authorities, 
a very warm admirer of Pascal: 

Au total, pur les citations, les Provinciales sont faites de 
trois apports: i textes pris par Pascal lui-meme aux ouvrages 
d Arnauld deja parus, par exemple a la Remontrance, a la 
Lettre a Polemarque, surtout a la Theologie morale des Jesuites , 
2 textes pris encore par Pascal lui-meme a Escobar; 3 textes 
enfin fournis a Pascal, par ses amis ces derniers extraits 
n etant guere que la recherche des sources d Escobar. 1 

It amounts to this then, that for his terrible onslaught 
on the whole Society ofjesus, Pascal had two authorities 
only, Arnauld and Escobar. Were the texts which he 
borrowed from those two sources cited by him ac 
curately? La question est singulierement difficile a 
resoudre, writes Strowski. Having shown why this 
should be, Strowski continues: De la vient que, si on 

1 Strowski, Pascal et son Temps, t. iii (Paris, 1908), p. 96. 

The Lineage of a Libel 51 

mettait d un cote les citations de Pascal, et de 1 autre les 
originaux de ces citations, on aurait souvent a noter des 
inexactitudes materielles. Tantot on trouverait que 
Pascal a omis tel ou tel mot, tantot on remarquerait qu il 
a coupe trop tot sa citation, tantot enfin 1 air de son 
franais ne paraitrait pas avoir 1 air meme des textes 
latins. 1 Is Pascal, then, to be called a falsificator? asks 
our authority. By no means, and we are given the edify 
ing spectacle of Strowski taking no less a person than 
Sainte-Beuve to task for having weakened a little in the 
faith. Strowski has what he considers a triumphant 
defence of Pascal, for, when that great man omits 
essential words, truncates citations, or translates with 
less than exactitude, he is but following an example, and 
what an example, for it is none other than that of 
Escobar ! The fact that Pascal followed Escobar faith 
fully is his complete justification: Tautorite d Escobar 
le couvre . But does it? Would it exonerate him in an 
English Court of Justice, if we could imagine one of the 
Jesuits truncated, &c., by their brother Escobar bring 
ing a libel action against him? We know well that it 
would not. And we know too, if we have any con 
sciences at all, that if a man elects to make a serious 
charge against another on the strength of something 
which he is alleged to have written, then the accuser has 
a bounden duty to go straight to the source and see how 
the words which he would attribute to his victim stand 
in the original context. Nor would it be much extenua 
tion if the accuser pleaded that he had given the words 
exactly as he had found them in a book by one of his 
victim s friends. The victim might well say: If an 
angel from Heaven had brought you the words you had 

1 L.C., p. 98. 

52 The Lineage of a Libel 

no right to use them for my defamation until you had 
looked them out in my book. What a contrast to all 
this special pleading of Pascal s friends are the third 
and fourth rules which Pope Benedict XIV laid down 
for the Congregations of the Index and Inquisition, in a 
Constitution of July 9, 1 753 : 

They are to know that they must pass judgement on the 
various opinions and views contained in every book with a 
mind free from all prejudice. Let them, therefore, shake off 
inclinations in favour of nation, family, school, or manner of 
living, and put aside party zeal. . . . And this also, we 
admonish, is to be carefully borne in mind, that no right 
judgement on the true sense of an author can be formed 
unless his book is read from end to end, the statements made 
in various places of it compared together, and the author s 
whole design taken into consideration. Nor must judgement 
be pronounced on the book from inspection and examination 
of one or other proposition contained therein, isolated from 
its context, for it often happens that what is set down by an 
author perfunctorily and obscurely in one part of his work 
is explained distinctly, fully and clearly in another part, so 
that the obscurity shrouding the previous expression of the 
proposition, which made it appear to have an ill meaning, 
is completely dissipated, and the proposition is recognized to 
be free from all blemish. 1 

There is a great deal more to be said on this subject, 
if this were the place to say it, but we must content our 
selves for the present with a more general judgement 
on the Lettres Provinciales. In the Preface to his Aspects 
of the Rise of Economic Individualism, Dr. Robertson men 
tions that Dr. H. F. Stewart very kindly lent him a rare 
book of Jesuit casuistry . 2 Dr. Stewart, who is Fellow 

1 Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum. Sanctissimi D. JV. Benedicti Papae XIV Bul- 
larium, t. iv (Romae, 1758), p. 74. 

2 Pirot s Apologie? 

The Lineage of a Libel 53 

and Praelector in French Studies, Trinity College, 
Cambridge, brought out an excellent edition of the 
Lettres Provinciates in 1920. He admires Pascal greatly, 
and says everything, and perhaps more than everything, 
that there is to be said in his favour. He stresses the 
general accuracy of Pascal s quotations, emphasizes his 
sincerity, and holds that it was natural for him to make 
the most of every advantage and never to give his 
adversary the benefit of the doubt, for he was writing, 
not as a judge, but as an advocate . 1 Dr. Stewart, how 
ever, who is the soul of fairness, writes not as an advocate 
but as a judge, and here is his verdict: 

Granting the clearness of the controversy, was his [Pascal s] 
mind clear of prejudice? Was his reading of the evidence 
unbiased? Was his interpretation of motive true? Was the 
laxity which he deplored entirely due to the Jesuits and their 
teaching? Was Trobabilism the poison which he proclaimed 
it to be? History and common sense compel us to answer no . 

Secondly, was he on the right side? Was the cause which 
he espoused worthy of his fiery zeal and of his unmatched 
genius? Was he best serving his Master when he thus 
furiously assailed men who, with all their shortcomings, were 
devoted to the same service? Was Jansenism, whose spirit 
he so perfectly expressed in his Letters, and in his own 
practice, more apt than the opposing creed not to win 
individual souls for Christ, for that it indubitably did but 
to regenerate the world? Christian experience compels us 
once again to a reluctant negative. . . . Jansenism was im- 

1 Is that a good argument, and hasn t an advocate got some duty to be fair? 
Arnauld justified the satire and bitterness of the Jansenists in a curious work 
entitled: Dissertation selon la methods des geometres pour la justification de ceux qui 
emploient en ecrivant, dans de certaines rencontres, des termes que le monde estime durs. 
How fond they were of geometry, those Jansenists ! In another writing, entitled 
Reponse a une lettre d une personne de condition, Arnauld carefully cited all the 
passages of Scripture and the Fathers which, in his opinion, authorized the 
liberties a man took to insult and cruelly mock his opponents (CEuvres completes, 
t. xxvii, p. i). 

54 The Lineage of a Libel 

possible alike in theory and in practice. Of its doctrine of 
Grace and its appalling results I have already spoken. Its 
practice was counter to the most innocent instincts of human 
ity. . . . When [Pascal] wrote the Lettres Provinciates he was 
blinded by enthusiasm, friendship, and a sense of cruel injus 
tice. . . . If he had lived longer we may believe that experience 
would have cleared his vision and that he would have found 
better weapons wherewith to fight the morale relachee 
against which he was pledged almost with his last breath 
than those which he fetched from the armoury of an extreme 
and narrow sect. 1 

It is worth remembering that during the single half 
century, 1600-56, when, according to Pascal from his 
arm-chair at Port-Royal, the Society of Jesus was en 
deavouring to put des coussins sous les bras des 
pecheurs , no fewer than eighty-two of her sons gladly 
suffered horrible deaths in far-away Japan for the love 
of Christ; while in Cartagena, where, according to 
Dr. Robertson, the Jesuits were attempting to get all 
the trade, all the transport and banking facilities into 
their own hands , St. Peter Claver, S.J., was kissing with 
tears of compassion the wounds and sores of the negro 
slaves and providing night and day for their wants with 
more than a mother s tenderness. That, however, is 
another story, as is the record of St. Francis Regis, S.J., 
at the same time, among the outcasts of Ardeche and 
the Lyonnais. 

The first answers to Pascal s devastating attack did 
not come from the Jesuits. It was only after the appear 
ance of the seventh Letter that they intervened, Peres 

1 Modern Language texts: Les Lettres Provinciates de Blaise Pascal. Edited by 
H. F. Stewart, D.D. Manchester, at the University Press, 1920. Introduction 
pp. xxxiv-xxxvi. Dr. Stewart goes more deeply into the same subject in 
Lecture II of his most interesting and delightfully written book, The Holiness 
of Pascal (Cambridge University Press, 1915). 

The Lineage of a Libel 55 

Nouet and Annat again being their principal cham 
pions. Neither man had much style or wit to commend 
him, but a certain sturdy logic in their criticism, which 
was by no means entirely urbane, forced Pascal to 
abandon his exquisite ridicule for a tone of aggrieved 
personal apology. Meantime he and Arnauld had 
found some eager allies among the cures of Paris who, 
in Strowski s dry words, avaient quelques petites 
raisons d etre jaloux des reguliers . These men, about 
eight in number, headed by the Sorbonne doctors, 
Rousse and Mazure, professed to be greatly grieved and 
shocked by the revelations of Pascal and started a 
campaign of their own against the Jesuits which, how 
ever, soon linked up with that of the Jansenists. In 
July, 1 656, a cure of Rouen launched forth against the 
Jesuits from his parish pulpit and was answered vigor 
ously by Pere de Brisacier. Other cures of the city who 
had already been won over to Jansenism by that match 
less proselytizer, the Duchesse de Longueville, rallied 
to the support of their brother and in two extensive, 
fervently worded Requestes begged the Archbishop of 
Rouen to save Christian morality by a public con 
demnation of the Jesuits. They then suggested an 
alliance with the cures of Paris for a general campaign 
against the common foe. The idea was well received, 
and caused the cabal, though numerically only a frac 
tion of the French secular priesthood, to assume the 
grand title of Le Clerge de France . 

Not long after the preliminary skirmishes of this new 
crusade, Rome pronounced finally against Jansenism. 
By a Constitution of October 16, 1656, Pope Alexander ~ 
VII declared and defined that the Five Propositions 
were in the Augustinus and that they had been con- 

56 The Lineage of a Libel 

demned in the sense in which Jansen understood them. 
At once both Arnauld and Pascal rose to the challenge, 
but for some mysterious reason the author of the Provin 
ciates suddenly broke off his work in the middle of a 
sentence, just as he seemed about to declare for a policy 
of passive resistance. Some say that it was the charitable 
persuasion of Mere Angelique which caused him to 
desist, while others, of Catholic sympathies, cherish the 
theory that weariness of Jansenism and loyalty to the 
Pope were the reasons. But if an excellent authority, 
M. Lanson, is right in attributing to Pascal the Lettre 
d un avocat au Parlement a un de ses amis, which appeared 
on June i , 1 657, it was certainly not regard for the Pope, 
as that pamphlet took the form of an appeal to the 
Gallicanism of Parlement and Hierarchy. 1 Pascal s 
desertion of Jansenism for an orthodox Thomism is 
hardly better established, as the French Dominican 
scholar, Pere Henri Petitot, has shown with admirable 
lucidity. 2 It is therefore more likely that the Provinciales 
came to an end not because their author had tired of 
baiting the Jesuits or become suddenly alive to his 
obligations as a Catholic but because the cures of Paris 
had discovered to him a better and safer way to con 
found the enemies of Jansenism. By going on with the 
Provinciales, which had been condemned in France by 
the Parlement of Provence and in Rome by the Holy 
Office, he might only have endangered his friends with 
out doing much more harm to his enemies. Far better, 
then, to fight under the banner of the good cures whose 
sympathies with Jansenism and hostility to Jesuitism 

1 Lanson s article, Apres les Provinciales , appeared in the Revue d histoire 
litteraire de la France, annee 1901, t. i. 

2 In his fine study, Pascal: sa vie religieuse et son Apologle du Christianisme, 
Paris, 191 1, pp. 345-419. 

The Lineage of a Libel 57 

he had every reason to trust. The Grand Vicars who 
governed the diocese of Paris in the compulsory absence 
of its intriguing Archbishop, Cardinal de Retz, had 
played their cards skilfully and made a dead letter of 
the formula against Jansenism which the General As 
sembly of the Clergy promulgated and required all 
ecclesiastics to sign. The Jesuits might have the King 
and Court on their side, but the Jansenists had de Retz 
and his allies of the Fronde, including the Grand 
Vicars and other prominent priests of Paris. Moreover, 
a good number of the French provincial bishops showed 
distinct leanings towards Jansenism, though only the 
Archbishop of Sens, Henri de Gondrin, had as yet 
openly declared himself the protector and friend of its 

It was in circumstances such as these, tense with the 
possibility of trouble, that a Paris Jesuit, Pere Georges 
Pirot, elected to publish a most provocative little volume 
entitled, Apologie pour les casuistes contre Us calomnies des 
Jansenistes. Pirot was an estimable and learned man, 
but he certainly chose the wrong method and the wrong 
moment for answering the charges against Jesuit moral 
theology. In sum, his method consisted in an attempt- 
to justify the various opinions which Pascal had de 
nounced. Now, many of the cases cited in the Lettres 
Provinciates were what might be called border-line ones, 
and the collection of them all in a single book could not 
fail to give a bad impression. Further, Pirot let his 
temper get the better of him and wrote in a hectoring 
tone which had none of Pascal s wit to redeem its un 
pleasantness. How, then, did it come about that he was 
allowed to publish the book? 

According to the account given in his Memoires by 

58 The Lineage of a Libel 

Pere Rene Rapin, a contemporary of the events, this 
is what happened. Pirot s provincial superior, Pere 
Jacques Renault, thoroughly disapproved of the Apologie 
and refused to permit its publication. The author then 
sought the permission of the General of the Jesuits and 
obtained it through the good offices of his friend and 
fellow townsman, Pere le Cazre, who represented the 
French Jesuits in Rome. As a consequence, continues 
Rapin, le livre parut, contre 1 avis des plus sages de la 
maison professe, du College et des meilleurs amis de la 
Societe. . . . Quoi qu il en soit, jamais livre ne parut plus 
a contre-temps: on le prit pour un aveu dans le monde 
de tout ce qui avait etc objecte aux Jesuites de leur 
morale, si decriee par Pascal, et pour une declaration 
en forme des sentiments de leur Compagnie. 1 

In his History of the Popes, Pastor follows this account 
of Rapin, but it is not quite correct. First of all, at the 
time when the book was published, December 1657, the 
Provincial was Pere Cellot, whom Renault did not suc 
ceed until January i, 1658. Now Cellot was one of the 
men who had suffered at the hands of Pascal, and it is 
possible that he may have given Pirot permission to go 
ahead. On the other hand, we know for certain that 
the General of the Society of Jesus did not sanction the 
publication of the book. Thus, on April i, 1658, he 
wrote as follows to the new Provincial, Pere Renault: 
In a letter of February i5th, your Reverence informed 
me that the book of Father Georges Pirot entitled 
Apology for the Casuists against the Jansenists, recently pub 
lished anonymously by order of Father Louis Cellot, 
the late Provincial, has stirred up great commotion 

1 Rapin, Me moires sur l glise et la Societe, publics pour la premiere fois par 
Leon Aubeneau, Paris, 1865, t. iii, p. 15. 

The Lineage of a Libel 59 

against the Society in France. Your Reverence is to 
reprehend Father Louis Cellot for allowing that book 
to come out without our permission, and you are also 
to admonish all subjects to abstain from such matters 
which are capable of giving offence. . . . In another 
letter of February 18, 1659, to Pere Renault, the 
General wrote as follows: Assuredly, if superiors in 
France had, as was their duty, prevented the publica 
tion of that Apology, instead of urging the author to 
rush into print too hastily, without permission from the 
General, we should not have been subjected to the 
tempest of spite and ill-will which we now suffer and 
bewail. And perhaps this is a punishment for the trans 
gression of the 42nd rule of the Summary, 1 sent to us 
that we may. learn to overcome by patience rather 
than by contention. 2 

It is clear, then, that, so far from sanctioning the book, 
the General strongly disapproved. The fault, it would 
seem, lay primarily with Pere Cellot, who, being human, 
must have felt sore at the way he had been mauled by 
Pascal. Once the damage was done the question arose 
whether the book should be defended. On that point 
there came to light a sharp division of opinion. Pere 
d Avrigny, who, like Rapin, was contemporary with 
the events, wrote in strong terms about what he con 
sidered the intrigues of Pirot. The Author and his 
friends prevailed, he says. In societies of men gener 
ally, it is not always the majority of suffrages which 

1 Summary of the Jesuit Constitutions, Rule 42: Let us all be of one mind 
and, as much as may be, let all say the same thing, according to the Apostle. 
Wherefore different doctrines are not to be admitted, either in word in public 
discourses, or in written books, which are not to be published without the 
General s approbation and consent. . . . 

z From a transcript of the original Latin in the archives of the French Jesuits, 
which I owe to the courtesy of M. 1 Abbe Becdelievre. 

6o The Lineage of a Libel 

carries the day. Sometimes, a little energy is sufficient 
to set these huge machines in motion. Usually, five or 
six dexterous or active men find the secret of getting to 
the head of affairs. Everything passes through their 
hands and with them rests the final decision. The 
reputation of the whole Body is in their keeping, and it 
is obliged to them if they do not ruin it. . . . J These are 
hard words, but who can deny the truth of them? 
Certainly the Jesuits, for all their famous martial 
discipline, know the truth of them only too well. 

What, then, was the judgement of the French Jesuits 
in general on Pirot s book? It would appear from the 
documentary evidence to have been as follows: The \ 
doctrines of Pirot can be sustained, since there are to be 
found good and solid moralists who defend them, but, 
collected in a single book, they give an unfortunate 
impression, as though it was the author s express pur 
pose to defend the most indulgent and liberal views. 
Pere Philippe Briet, a Paris Jesuit, wrote in exactly these 
terms to the General on February 21, 1659. The gist of 
his very interesting letter is in this sentence: Though 
otherwise I would pass this work because I think its 
views can be defended, I am compelled at present to 
reject it, since I have heard with my own ears what men 
in high esteem think of it . . . Similar was the view of 
Pere Francois Annat, a good and wise man whom the 
Jansenists could not forgive the crime of being confessor 
to the King. But the man best qualified to speak for the 
French Jesuits was their Provincial, and the reader may 
wonder whether he left any judgement on record. He 
did, not only in letters to the General, but in a document 
which he caused to be appended to Pirot s book when 

1 Memoires Chronologiques et Dogmatiques, t. ii, p. 376. 

The Lineage of a Libel 61 

it was reissued in 1658. To that document we shall 
return a little later. After telling the General in a letter 
of June 14, 1658, of the terrible storm that had swept 
down on the Society of Jesus in France apropos of the 
Apologie, Pere Renault continued: 

I do not see a more efficacious remedy for this evil than 
that your Paternity should order me to instruct all the 
rectors of this Province in your name as to the reply that 
our Fathers must make to those not of the Society concerning 
this affair, namely that our Society embraces and defends 
nothing proper to itself in the domain of moral theology, 
except what the Church and her Supreme Pontiffs lay down 
and approve. As for what are called probable opinions, 
none other are permitted by the same Society to our Fathers 
than those which the Church permits to all orthodox doctors, 
namely such as are commonly received in the schools without 
any taint of suspicion, while from laxer opinions, which seem 
to foster licence, the Society, according to its zeal for the glory 
of God and the salvation of the neighbour, is far removed. 

Finally, your Paternity should enjoin on superiors and 
rectors to be assiduously vigilant that henceforth none of our 
men may write or say, whether privately or in public, anything 
savouring of the mildness of laxer discipline with which our 
enemies reproach us. And if superiors find that anybody has 
erred in this respect, they must not let him go unpunished. 

Should these suggestions appear good to your Paternity, I 
hope that we shall be able in future to avert the dislike of 
good men and the calumny of enemies, when it shall be 
manifest from our unanimous agreement that we are very 
much strangers to those opinions which are fastened on to 
us, as though we were promoters of laxity. . . . 

The General replied on July 22, entering completely 
into Pere Renault s views and instructing him to have 
them carried out, omnibus quibus potest modis . 
And now, to do Pere Pirot justice, we may consider 

62 The Lineage of a Libel 

for a moment whether he deserved all the opprobrium 
that was visited upon him. Here is a considered judge 
ment kindly communicated to me by one who has a very- 
good right to speak, the successor to Pere Fouqueray as 
official historian of the French Jesuits: 

Nous devons parler avec reserve et moderation d un 
ouvrage qui a etc comme YApologie, vivement attaque et 
condamne. Cependant, a tout prendre, il semble que les 
contemporains de 1 auteur, meme les amis de la Compagnie, 
meme plusieurs Jesuites, mal impressiones par le bruit que 
soulevait ce livre et le tort qu il rendait a la cause de la 
Compagnie, 1 ont juge trop severement. Et de nos jours, on 
continue, peut-etre sans 1 avoir lu, a le juger de meme (voyez 
le P. Alexandre Brou, Les Jesuites de la Legende, t. ii, pp. 8 et 9). 

J ai sous les yeux une longue lettre du Pere Jacques de 
Blic, ecrite au debut de 1922, lorsqu il preparait son article 
du Dictionnaire de Theologie. 1 II avait etudie tres soigneuse- 
ment YApologie et il m ecrivait que excepte sur la question 
de 1 usure qu il n avait pas encore examinee il etait a peu 
pres certain que la doctrine du Pere Pirot est inattaquable. 
Elle n a ete condamnee que par les Jansenistes. II a manque, 
a et la, d exprimer dans les termes certains reserves ou 
restrictions, mais elles etaient evidemment dans sa pensee. 
Ou I auteur a eu tort, c est dans la forme: il a traite ses 
adversaires d une maniere insolente et peu religieuse, qui ne 
pouvait manquer de les exasperer. 

We shall have occasion later to see how Pirot and his 
casuists compare with modern non-Jesuit moral theolo 
gians in the solution of a case exploited of old by Pascal 
and recently by Dr. H. M. Robertson. As already indi 
cated, the Apologie gave rise to a terrible outcry against 

1 Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, commence sous la direction de A. Vacant 
et E. Mangenot, continue sous celle de E. Amann. This, by far the most exten 
sive and learned of Catholic Dictionaries, is now at its eleventh volume. None 
of its editors are Jesuits. Pere de Blic s article is under the title Jesuites and 
on the subject of Jesuit moral theology. 

The Lineage of a Libel 63 

the Jesuits all over France. The cures of Paris were the 
first to the attack with a Requeste presentee aux Vicaires 
Generaux de M. I Archevesque contre cette Apologie, February 
1658, according to which the Jesuits in that book not 
only defended the very proposition already censured by 
the suppliants mais encore de nouvelles plus estranges 
et plus impies: en sorte qu il n y a plus de crimes qu ils 
ne permettent en conscience, simonie, usure, meurtre, 
vengeance, fraudes, larcins, occasions prochaines et 
inevitables de peche, calomnies, profanation des sacra 
ments, et une infinite d autres, dont les Payens mesmes 
auroient horreur. 

Already in January these same zealous cures had 
determined to enlist the help of their friends the Jansen- 
ists, and so it was that, at their request, none other than 
Pascal himself drew up a Factum pour les Cures de Paris, 
beginning with the brave words, Notre Cause est la 
cause de la Morale Chrestienne . It did not seem to 
worry them that la foi Chrestienne was, by the express 
declarations of the Holy See, in danger from those with 
whom they now sealed a close but carefully disguised 
alliance. Not to be outdone, the cures of Rouen pub 
lished a huge Factum of their own, beginning in the same 
style as that of their Paris brethren: Nous continuons 
de combattre pour la Morale Chrestienne contre ceux 
qui ne cessent point de la corrompre. According to his 
biographers the real author of this candescent piece of 
invective was Nicole, Arnauld s right-hand man and 
the translator of the Lettres Provinciales into Latin. With 
it, the cures sent to their Archbishop a letter of close 
on ten thousands words, urging him for every conceiv 
able reason, including the fact that his uncle had not 
liked Jesuits, to condemn the Apologie. 

64 The Lineage of a Libel 

Meantime, the Jesuits had answered the Paris Factum, 
pointing out, as was perfectly true, that it consisted 
largely of a rehash of the Lettres Provinciales. To this the 
cures replied with a Second Ecrit, couched in a tone of 
such authoritativeness that one might look to see at its 
foot the name of a Pope denouncing ex cathedra some 
terrible heresy. But again, in the judgement of scholars, 
the voice is the voice of Pascal, and Pascal, too, was the 
real author of the fifth and sixth of these Ecrits which 
followed shortly afterwards. 1 In the fifth, he allowed 
that it was impossible to deny au moins un bien dans 
les Jesuites , namely, that unlike the Calvinists, they had 
not broken away from Catholic unity. Continuing in 
the same generous strain, he said: Aussi il n est pas 
impossible que parmy tant de Jesuites il ne s en ren 
contre qui ne soient point dans leurs erreurs. 5 In other 
words, it was conceivable that there might be here and 
there a Jesuit who did not share the sentiments of cet 
Apologiste blasphemateur . 

The campaign against the Jesuits, very skilfully 
directed by the Jansenists through their willing tools, 
the cabal of Paris cures, resulted in the stern condemna 
tion of the Apologie by no fewer than twenty-one bishops. 
But the fact must not be forgotten that there were close 
on a hundred other bishops in France who could not 
be cajoled into hostility, while of the twenty-one all but 
two are known for their open sympathy with the Jansen- 
ist cause. Among them, the most ruthless censurer was 
Henri de Gondrin, Archbishop of Sens, an old friend 
of Saint-Cyran, whose name headed the list of bishops 
approving of Arnauld s De la frequente communion, and 

1 All are included in the (Euvres de Blaise Pascal, published by Brunschwieg, 
Boutroux and Gazier in 14 volumes, Paris, 1904-14, t. vii, pp. 278-995 308-27; 
355-735 t. viii, pp. 42-63- 

The Lineage of a Libel 65 

who, on January 26, 1 653, had pronounced and solemnly 
promulgated sentence of excommunication against any 
of his diocesans who should dare to go to confession 
to a Jesuit. As is well known, Gondrin came near to 
being excommunicated himself for his resistance to the 
Bull of Innocent X condemning Jansenism. 1 And then 
there were the famous four, the Bishops of Angers 
(Antoine Arnauld s brother, Henri!), Pamiers, Beau- 
vais, and Alet, all ardent censurers of the Apologie, who 
have won a sad immortality in church history for their 
contumacious refusal to sign the formula against Jan 
senism promulgated by the Pope. The last of them, 
Pavilion of Alet, a man of fierce temper and stern 
morals, went the length of excommunicating two of his 
clergy for putting their names to the Formula. 2 

Other Bishops who pronounced against theApologie and 
Jesuit moral theology as a whole in the harshest terms 
were Godeau of Vence, one of the principal defenders of 
the Five Propositions; Vialart of Chalons and Ghoiseul 
of Comminges, who warmly supported Godeau s Jansen- 
ist activities; Delbene of Orleans and de Gaumartin of 
Amiens, approvers of Arnauld s communion book, who, 
with nine others, had written to the Pope in April 1651 
an extraordinary letter expostulating against the con 
demnation of the Augustinus; 3 and Gilles, Bishop of Ev- 
reux, whose cures, when petitioning him to condemn 
the Apologie, gave the following very significant reason: 

La seconde raison, Monseigneur, qui est personelle, est que 

1 For his activities see Pastor, Geschichte der Pdpste, vol. xiv, part i, pp. 191-2, 
215-21, 431-2, 444-5> 555~9> 5 6 8~7> &c - 

2 He lifted the sentence on condition that they retracted in writing, left off 
saying Mass for two months, fasted every Friday for six months, paid 25 limes 
fine, and promised to read nothing except what emanated from the printing- 
press of Port-Royal (Petitot, Collection de Me maires, t. xxxiii, p. 157). 

3 Pastor, l.c., pp. 192-3. 


66 The Lineage of a Libel 

ce livre infame combat ouvertement vos propres sentiments, 
touchant la penitence; nous voulons dire 1 approbation solen- 
nelle que vous avez donnee au livre De la Frequente Com 
munion, que vous recommandez a tous les fideles, comme un 
don tres particulier de la providence. . . . Ce grand livre ayant 
oppose aux erreurs des nouveaux Casuistes la doctrine de 
tous les Peres et des Conciles, qui nous avertissent de prendre 
garde que les la iques ne soient pas trompez et jetez dans 
Penfer par de fausses penitences, cet Apologiste, au contraire 
ne travaille qu a retablir ces abus si dangereux, et a entretenir 
les pecheurs dans une revolution continuelle de confessions 
et de crimes. . . . 

These interesting words enable us to see that there were 
two opposing conceptions of the Christian life at war 
just then, the Jesuit conception, which to all intents and 
purposes was that of their own great pupil and warm 
friend St. Francis de Sales, and Saint-Cyran s concep 
tion, which, in Dr. Stewart s words, was counter to the 
most innocent instincts of humanity . The main error 
of the Jansenists with regard to the moral discipline of 
Christianity was to consider it as a static, immutable 
thing instead of a life which develops and adapts itself 
to the needs of different epochs and civilizations. Con 
founding precepts with counsels, they preached an ideal 
perfection, a morale geometrique , impossible to nine- 
tenths of mankind, and so circumscribed the pale of 
Christianity that, in Saint-Beuve s words, to find in 
clusion in it one must be an individu paradoxe de 
Pespece humaine . 

The Jesuits, on the other hand, remembering their 
Master s words that His yoke was sweet and His burden 
light, taught tirelessly that God was much more of a 
Friend to be loved than a Rex tremendae majestatis 
to be placated. In the application of moral principles 

The Lineage of a Libel 67 

to the constantly changing conditions of human life, 
they allowed for the changes and refused, in opposition 
to the Jansenists, to consider the Ten Commandments 
as ten propositions in geometry. Unfortunately for 
them, it was the age of the Art Poetique, when large 
numbers of men had fallen in love with straight lines 
and antique formulae. With brilliant strategy, the Jan 
senists seized upon those rigid, archaic habits of thought 
as a lever in the movement against casuistry. We have 
seen that there were other levers, too, the sensitiveness 
of the Universities of Paris and Louvain with regard to 
the Jesuit colleges, the rivalry of seculars and regulars, 
the Gallicanism of the Parlement and Sorbonne. All 
these forces, which could hardly be looked upon as 
disinterested, combined under Jansenist provocation 
for the assault on Pirot s Apologie. Is it to be believed 
that, in the circumstances, they were likely to do that 
unfortunate book even a minimum of justice? 

Let us now see what the French Jesuit Provincial 
Pere Renault had to say in his short answer to Pascal 
entitled, Le Sentiment des Jesuites sur le lime de V Apologie 
pour les Casuistes. He begins by protesting that, while the 
Society of Jesus does her best to form good and learned 
writers and directors of souls, she makes no claim to be 
able to render them impeccable. For her, the law of 
God, the precepts of the Church, the decrees of Councils, 
and the Constitutions of Popes are the foundations of 
moral theology: 

Elle s attache inviolablement a Tautorite de PEglise, qui 
est la Colonne de verite: Elle reconnoist le Chef qui gouverne 
cette mesme figlise pour Juge souverain de la doctrine des 
mceurs: Elle rejette ce qu il condamne: Elle regoit avec 
reverence ce qu il approve: Elle fait sa science des Oracles 

68 The Lineage of a Libel 

de sa bouche et, comme il ne peut faillir dans ses Decisions, 
elle ne pense pas se pouvoir tromper dans la deference qu elle 
rend a ses jugements. Qu il parle sur les opinions que Ton 
sou.pc.onne d erreur et de scandale, elle ne fera point de 
difficulte de signer ses Bulles; elle n eludera point ses Ana- 
themes par des distinctions de droit et dejait; elle n epargnera 
point le nom de ses auteurs, s ils se trouvent atteints des 
foudres de Rome; elle retranchera de leurs ouvrages tout ce 
qui ne sera pas conforme a la regie supreme de sa conduite. 
Voila en un mot sa Morale. 

Pere Renault then goes on to prove that the Society 
of Jesus was not attempting to form any sect in theo 
logy . She allowed her sons exactly the same liberty that 
the Church allowed all theologians, namely to seek the 
truth wherever they could find it, and, when it proved 
inaccessible, to embrace the most likely solution. Con 
tenting herself with prescribing the limits within which 
all wise men find their security, she obliges her sons to 
shun equally the two pitfalls of attachment, on the one 
hand, to opinions condemned by the public conscience, 
and, on the other, of inventing novelties of speculation. 
Though, in this matter, it is hardly less dangerous to err 
by excessive rigour than by too great laxity, the Society 
of Jesus for her part inclines rather to the side of rigour. 
As for Jesuits straying beyond accepted boundaries, 

II se peut faire que quelque particulier sorte de ces limites, 
et que, charme par 1 image d une apparente verite, il s em- 
porte trop avant a sa poursuite: et il n y a pas lieu de s en 
estonner. Si de tous les livres qui paroissent sous le nom des 
Jesuites, il ne s en trouvoit aucun qui ne fust pas sans tache, 
ce seroit une exemption aussi rare que celle du peche originel; 
ce seroit un privilege sans exemple, puis qu il n a pas este 
accorde aux Peres ny aux Docteurs de 1 figlise. . . . 

D ou vient done que Ton condamne les Jesuites parce que 
le P. Hereau (car nos enemis se servent toujours de cet 

The Lineage of a Libel 69 

exemple), abandonnant presque tous les ecrivains de son 
Ordre, a suivi Monsieur Duval, Docteur de Sorbonne, sur 
le sujet de 1 homicide, et que Ton n accuse pas les Sorbon- 
nistes, parce que le premier homme de leur Maison a servi 
d ecueil a ce Jesuite? D ou vient que Ton impute a tout le 
Corps la faute d un seul, et qu on ne luy attribue pas le 
merite de tous les autres? Le peche d un Jesuite, est-il de la 
nature de celuy d Adam? Passe- t-il par une contagieuse 
transfusion a tous ceux qui viennent apres lui? . . . Le 
P. Bauny, dites-vous, s est trop relasche sur le sujet des 
occasions prochaines, et vous m en donnez le blasme parce que 
je suis Jesuite comme luy. Je ne dispute pas si vous luy 
imposez, si vous alterez sa doctrine pour la rendre criminelle: 
je vous demande pourquoy vous vous en prenez a moy? 
Pourquoy me jugez-vous par 1 imprudence, soit veritable ou 
supposee, d un seul Auteur, me pouvant absoudre, si vous 
estiez tant soit peu raisonnable, par la saine doctrine de cent 
Theologiens et Predicateurs qui sont tous Jesuites et qui 
enseignent neantmoins tout le contraire de ce que vous dites? 
Vous m appelez, parce qu il vous plaist ainsi, le Gorrupteur 
des moeurs, le Protecteur des simoniaques et des Casuistes 
charnels qui publient un second Alcoran parmy les Chrestiens. 
Vous faites retentir de ces noms les Chaires et les Tribunaux, 
les coles et les Ruelles. Qui d entre les Jesuites vous a 
donne sujet d exciter centre eux ce scandale public dans la 
ville capitale du Royaume? Sont-ce les Predicateurs qui 
portent la parole de Dieu aux fideles? Sont-ce les Confesseurs 
qui leur dispensent la grace des Sacrements? Sont-ce les 
Directeurs qui les eclairent par la lumiere de leurs conseils? 
Si leur Compagnie estoit, comme vous le voulez faire croire, 
une source corrompue d ou naissent toutes les ordures de la 
terre, ce seroit sans doute par ces canaux qu elle repandroit 
son venin. On les ecoute neantmoins (et c est peut-estre la 
cause de vostre douleur),on les ecoute, dis-je, avec edification; 
on les consulte sans defiance; on leur decouvre dans le dernier 
secret les plus intimes mouvements de 1 ame, et personne ne 
s en trouve mal, grace a Dieu, personne ne s en plaint, 

yo The Lineage of a Libel 

personne n apprend dans leur conversation ces horribles 
Maximes qu on lit avec etonnement dans vos Satyres ou- 
trageuses. ... 

Vous m apportez, pour justifier 1 excez de vostre passion, 
une nouvelle Apologie qui defend les Casuistes a qui vous 
avez declare la guerre? Mais je vous reponds que je ne 
prends point de part a cet ouvrage, et que je ne veux point 
estre parti dans une guerre que j estime funeste aux victorieux 
et aux vaincus, puisqu elle ne peut produire que le rnepris 
de la Religion, et la ruine de la Charite, qui est un bien 
commun. . . . Vous me dites que la doctrine qu il enseigne 
est criminelle, mais il soustient, au contraire, qu elle est en 
partie de Monsieur Duval, en partie de Major, et en partie, 
d autres Docteurs de Sorbonne, tous excellents Auteurs. 
Quoy qu il en soit, je vous assure que ce n est point la mienne, 
que ce n est point celle de nostre Gompagnie. . . . Souffrez 
que j entretienne la paix avec vous sans blesser Fhonneur qui 
est due a ces grands homines, dont la memoire survivra a vos 
querelles. . . . Contentez-vous que j evite les fautes ou je croy 
que quelques-uns sont tombez sans les faire connoistre au 
peuple, qui n en peut tirer que du scandale. S il estoit ques 
tion d attaquer les Heretiques, je ferois gloire de combattre 
sous vos enseignes, et d apprendre de vous a manier ces 
armes de lumiere qu un veritable zele met entre les mains 
des enfants de Dieu; mais tandis qu il s agit de flestrir le 
nom des plus celebres Theologiens, pardonnez-moy si je dis 
que c est une entreprise dont je ne me sens pas capable, et 
que j aime mieux attendre la censure de leur doctrine d une 
autorite souveraine que de precipiter la mienne. 

There speaks the best accredited voice among the Jesuits 
of France, and perhaps some will prefer its quiet tone 
even to the seductive music of the Provinciates . With Pere 
Renault s words, written in the blackest hour of his 
Order s desolation, our long quest reaches its term, the 
year 1659, when there came into the world a stout 
octavo volume of 822 pages, bearing the imprint, A 

The Lineage of a Libel 71 

Cologne, chez Nicolas Schoute , and the title, La 
Theologie morale des Jesuites et nouveaux Casuistes: Repre- 
senteepar leur pratique etpar leur limes: Condamnee ily a dejd 
long-temps par plusieurs Censures, Decrets d Universitez, et 
Arrests de Corns souverains: Nouvellement combattue par les 
Curez de France: et CENSUREE par un grand nombre de 
Prelats, et par des Facultez de Theologie Catholiques. The 
work is divided into five parts, the first being occupied 
with Diverses plaintes de 1 fivesque d Angelopolis 
contre les entreprises et les violences des Jesuites . Parts 
two and three are devoted to the old censures against 
Santarelli, Bauny, Hereau, &c., as well as to a variety 
of Louvain censures and letters against the Jesuits from 
the two most notoriously Jansenist Prelates of Belgium, 
Mgr Boonen, Archbishop of Malines, and Mgr Triest, 
Bishop of Ghent. Finally, parts four and five, more than 
half the whole volume, enshrine all the thunders let 
loose on the Apologie of Pirot. 

This is the source-book to which Dr. H. M. Robertson 
refers with complete confidence. Other authorities of 
this class, on which he relies, need not detain us long, as 
they were inspired by exactly the same parti pris. The 
Morale des Jesuites of 1667 is a collection of texts made by 
the declared Jansenist Nicholas Perrault to show that 
the Jesuits were bent on profaning all the Sacraments, 
destroying all the virtues, and authorizing every sort of 
vice. Nicholas was the brother of the man who gave us 
Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, and Puss in Boots, 
such gay and lovely fairy-tales compared with the tedi 
ous, lack-lustre ones of which the Morale des Jesuites is 
composed. In 1669 there came down on the battle-field 
of Jesuits and Jansenists the famous, curious Peace of 
Pope Clement IX . Arnauld solemnly promised the 

72 The Lineage of a Libel 

King of France that he would no nothing to disturb it, 
but the words were hardly out of his mouth when there 
appeared the first volume of La Morale pratique des 
Jesuites, yet another collection of old libels against the 
Order, made under Dr. Antoine s direction by Mere 
Angelique s Clerk of the Holy Thorn , the Abbe de 
Font-Chateau. Font-Chateau, though a Port-Royal 
solitary, was very much addicted to le tourisme and 
went on a special voyage into Spain to secure a copy of 
the Teatro Jesuitico, a pseudonymous anthology of anti- 
Jesuit stories which circulated there. The second 
volume of La Morale pratique was also the fruit of his 
industry, but bibliographers attribute the remaining six 
volumes, which appeared at intervals between 1690 and 
1 695, to Arnauld s indefatigable research, and they are 
included in his CEuvres Completes. A scrap of the preface 
to this colossal requisitoire may be given: On desire de 
tout son cceur que ce travail puisse etre utile aux 
Jesuites, car, quoi qu ils en puissent dire, on les aime et 
Ton a pour eux toute la charite que Ton doit; mais on 
n ose 1 esperer. Comment on such a passage would be 
superfluous. On les aime! Even Sainte-Beuve, who was 
no friend to Jesuits, could not stomach such hypocrisy 
any more than he could abide Port-Royal s ridiculous 
anti-Jesuit collections: Us me degoutent etm ennuient 
a n en pouvoir parler, he wrote. Que vous dirai-je? 
II y cut la queue de Pascal, . . . ce tas de volumes communs 
et copies, de compilation polemique . . . acceuillant tout, 
croyant tout. 1 Yes; they welcome and believe every 
thing, even the pitiful ravings of the Bishop of Angelo- 

1 Port-Rcyal, a i& n e d., t. iii, p. 151. 


MONO other extracts from La Theologie morale des Jesu- 
ites which Dr. Robertson puts before his readers as 
serious proof that those men encouraged the spirit of 
capitalism by both precept and example is the following 
question addressed to Pope Innocent X by the Bishop 
of Angelopolis: Quelle autre Religion . . ., au grand 
etonnement et scandale des seculiers, a rempli presque 
tout le monde de leur commerce par mer et par terre, 
et de leurs contrats pour ce sujet? As an historian of 
economics Dr. Robertson must surely have known that 
the good Bishop was talking the most palpable nonsense. 
Histories of commerce are numerous, but not one of 
them has a syllable to indicate that the Jesuits covered 
practically all the world by sea and land with their 
trading activities. It is very strange indeed that a 
learned man should repeat such a story without com 
ment, so strange that we must be content to leave it a 
mystery. On the other hand, there is no mystery at all 
about the motives which led the Bishop of Angelopolis 
to make his wild statement. A short account of his 
career will show them plainly, and at the same time 
give a clue to the origin and propagation of myths about 
the Society of Jesus. 

First, who was this Bishop of Angelopolis? A Spanish 
hidalgo, illegitimate, born ugly and deformed, perse 
cuted , he says in his autobiography, both before and 
after his birth by his wicked mother, who had tried to 
destroy him in her womb, and afterwards to drown him. 
At his baptism, the autobiography continues, he was 

74 The Bishop of Angelopolis 

restored to permanent physical beauty and health by a 
miracle. 1 After recognition by his aristocratic father he 
bore the name of Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, and 
so may have been related in some way, horribile dictu, to 
Antonio Escobar y Mendoza, S.J. A clever man, he 
attracted the notice of King Philip IV of Spain and was 
made treasurer of the Council of the Indies in 1626, at 
the age of twenty-six. There followed what he called 
his conversion, ordination, and appointment in 1639 to 
the richest bishopric in Mexico, Puebla de los Angeles, 
which in Graeco-Latin is Angelopolis. At the same 
time, King Philip created him Visitor of the Audiencia 
in Mexico, a post carrying with it jurisdiction over all 
the courts of the country. 

Within a year of his arrival in the New World in 1640, 
he had superseded the King s representative and com 
bined in his own person the offices of Viceroy, Captain 
General, Bishop of Puebla, Administrator of the vacant 
Bishopric of Mexico City, and Visitor of the Audiencia. 
How did he use his vast power? We do not require any 
biased Jesuits to tell us, for we have a letter on the sub 
ject, addressed to Philip IV by the magistrates of Mexico 
City, November 10, 1645. The following is an extract 
from this document: 

It is not so much the troubles to which reference has been 
made that Mexico feels as the affliction in which it has found 
itself lately throughout the last five and a half years, owing 
to the presence of Don Juan de Palafox. . . . The only fruits 
visible during this long period have been great expenses and 
salaries for his servants, ministers, and partisans, paid from 
Your Majesty s royal treasury, and by the residents of this 

1 The autobiography is entitled Vida interior de un peccador arrependido. There 
are besides a number of biographies, all of Jansenist origin. One of them occu 
pies the whole of volume iv of La Morale pratique des Jesuites. 

The Bishop of Angelopolis 75 

City, now in such a bad state owing to the troubles referred 
to above. . . . 

He [Palafox] is ever with the whip raised, ready to strike, 
and making threats that his power shall never cease. No 
sooner are law-suits begun than he carefully delays them. 
He is continually absent from his Bishopric, while prisoners 
remain in confinement, disputes without any means of settling 
them, and the Courts of Justice in suspense. The Religious 
Orders are offended because he interferes with everything, 
and, in his itch to command, he will have nothing reserved 
from him, thereby giving his allies and helpers a pretext for 
sending out new commissions and secret orders every day, in 
Your Majesty s name. . . . 

At the same time his own household is so little controlled 
and corrected that its members have been the cause of death 
to people, under scandalous circumstances. . . . Not a mem 
ber of his suite but has great crimes to his account . . . their 
object apparently being to capture the government of the 
country. . . . To attain this end, the Bishop, assisted by his 
partisans, is to be found writing at his house during the night 
and at all hours against all those, whether alive or dead, who 
failed or fail to take sides with him ... so that all is fear, 
suspicion and sorrow of heart for the people at large and 
for each individual. . . . T 

1 Cited by Astrain, Historia de la Campania de Jestis en la Asistencia de Espana, 
t. v (Madrid, 1916), pp. 360-1, from the original in the Archivo de Indias. 
Astrain has long since come to be recognized by all who know his work as an 
historian sans peur et sans reproche. His long account of the dispute between 
Palafox and the Jesuits (I.e., pp. 356-41 1) is a model of scrupulous impartiality, 
in which he spares his brethren nothing that tells against them and not infre 
quently adds a personal unfavourable judgement which, in my poor opinion, 
another Jesuit could well contest. To give but one example of his methods, it 
is well known that Charles III of Spain, who was one of those chiefly instru 
mental in bringing about the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773, made 
great efforts to secure the beatification of Palafox. In connexion with the pro 
cess there are eight volumes of reports and documents extant. At first sight , 
writes Astrain (I.e., p. 357, n. i), one could believe from the title that the 
volumes treated of the beatification of Palafox. But that is not so. As appears 
from the sub-title (Summarium objectionale), what they contain are the objections 
officially proposed against his beatification. Here is collected all that could in 

76 The Bishop of Angelopolis 

Within five days of the date of that letter, the new 
Viceroy of Mexico, the Gonde de Salvatierra, wrote on 
his own account to the King, complaining that Palafox, 
when supposed to be engaged on his duties as Visitor of 
the Audiencia, passed all his time in composing an essay 
on the life of St. Peter and in giving publicity to an 
attack on the Franciscan Friars . Almost from the 
moment of his arrival in Mexico he had declared war 
on the religious orders, Dominicans, Franciscans, 
Augustinians, with one notable exception. For some 
time he kept on quite good terms externally with the 
Jesuits, visited at their houses, and made considerable 
use of their services for missions in his diocese. In a 
letter to the King, he warmly commended the work of 
the Fathers, took one of them, Lorenzo Lopez, with him 
on his pastoral visitations, and for fit least two years and 
a half regularly made his confession to another Jesuit, Padre 
Ddvalos. 1 

The first sign of coming trouble appeared in 1642. A 
canon of Puebla thought of endowing the Jesuit College 
of Veracruz with a property which he possessed. That 
was in 1639, before Palafox s arrival. The chapter in 
formed the canon that he must not carry out his project 
without adding a clause enjoining on his beneficiaries 
the obligation of paying tithes to the Cathedral of 
Puebla. In 1642, however, the canon made his first 
bequest without the clause, whereupon Palafox, then 

one way or another damage the memory of Palafox, and, since the work was 
written with the manifest design of objecting, it is not possible to trust it for the 
formation of a judgement on him. We have recurred to those volumes, then, 
only in order to consult some documents reproduced in them textually which 
we could not find elsewhere. Rather a contrast this, is it not? to the methods 
of those who go to La Theologie morale and La Morale pratique for enlightenment 
on the subject of Jesuits. 
1 Astrain, I.e., pp. 363, 372. 

The Bishop ofAngelopolis 77 

Bishop, promptly excommunicated and imprisoned the 
unfortunate man. At the same time he composed a 
disquisition to show that all religious orders had an 
obligation to pay tithes, in spite of their very clear privi 
leges to the contrary, and in this work made such wildly 
exaggerated statements about the wealth of the Jesuits 
and the poverty of his own Cathedral Church that the 
Fathers felt compelled to reply. From that moment 
they were doomed. Further orders were issued to all the 
Bishop s diocesans that, when bequeathing property to 
religious orders, they must insert a clause ensuring the 
payment of tithes in perpetuity or else the testator would 
incur excommunication and other grave penalties. 

As the question of Jesuit wealth has cropped up so 
soon, it may be as well before proceeding further to see 
how the matter really stood. In another part of his work, 
unconnected with Palafox, Astrain prints the text of an 
official audit of Jesuit properties in Mexico made on 
December 16, 1653. To save space, I have ventured to 
tabulate this document on the next page. It shows 
that the Jesuits of Mexico possessed all told an annual 
income of 156,300 silver pesos between 332 men, and a 
capital debt, due to the raising of loans, of 740, 1 20 silver 
pesos. With these figures for 2 1 Colleges or missions we 
may contrast what Don Juan de Palafox received, 
namely 30,000 pesos on taking office, an annual personal 
income of 60,000 pesos, and fees in connexion with his 
office of Visitador of 290,000 pesos. No wonder that he 
was able to bank for himself in Castille out of his savings 
a sum of 80,000 pesos. 1 

For four years after the dispute about the tithes, 
Bishop Palafox left the Jesuits unmolested and never by 

1 Astrain, I.e., pp. 321-5, 382, 402. 

The Bishop of Angelopolis 


Number of 

Annual Revenue in 
silver pesos. 

Debts in silver 

House of Professed, 
Mexico City. 


None ( with great 
difficulty they 
support them 
selves on ordi 


nary alms ). 

College of SS. Peter and 
Paul, Mexico City. 



292,000 of which 
13,000 must be 
paid off annually. 

Novitiate of Santa Ana. 



1 14,000 

Seminary of San Ilde- 




College and Novitiate of 




College of the Holy 
Ghost, Puebla. 




College of San Ildefonso, 




Seminary of St. Jerome, 




College of Veracruz. 




College of Merida. 




College of Oajaca. 




College of Guatemala. 



1 7,000 

College of Valladolid. 




College of Pazcuaro. 




College of Guadalajara. 




College of Queretaro. 




Residence of San Luis de 
la Paz. 




College of San Luis de 




College of Zacatecas. 




College of Guadiana. 




Missions of Cinaloa and 




the Sierras. 





a word or deed questioned the validity of their right to 
preach and hear confessions in his diocese. Then sud 
denly, on Ash Wednesday, 1647, he caused the rectors 
of the Jesuit houses within his jurisdiction to be informed 
that their faculties were suspended and that they must 

The Bishop of Angelopolis 79 

present the same to him for examination before the 
expiry of twenty-four hours. Now, many years earlier, 
Pope St. Pius V, in a desire to facilitate the work of 
missionaries in America, had decided that the members 
of certain religious orders, if licensed to preach and hear 
confessions by any bishop in the Indies , might lawfully 
continue to exercise their ministry in the dioceses of 
other bishops without it being necessary for them to 
obtain fresh faculties. On January 2, 1597, Pope 
Clement VIII extended this privilege to the Society of 
Jesus, at the same time putting the bishops of America 
under an order of holy obedience not to oblige the 
Fathers to seek fresh approbation when they passed from 
one diocese to another. This privilege was confirmed 
to the Society by Paul V and again, in even clearer 
terms, by Gregory XIII. Gregory XV, however, with 
drew the privilege from all orders in 1622 by the Bull 
Inscrutabili, but his successor, Urban VIII, exempted all 
Spanish territories from the new legislation. 1 

The Jesuits of Puebla, thinking that if they submitted 
their faculties as the Bishop demanded they would be 
renouncing their privilege, made the great mistake of 
refusing. 2 When the General of the Society of Jesus 
came to know of their action, he condemned it in the 
strongest terms, saying that it was beyond his compre 
hension how they could have failed to give that gratifica 
tion to the Bishop, no matter how brusquely he had 
demanded it. You know the great respect and rever 
ence which we owe to bishops, a respect and reverence 

1 Astrain, I.e., pp. 393-55 where the Latin text of the Papal decrees is cited. 

2 Here is Astrain s judgement: Our Fathers ought to have known that [the 
Bishop s] demand was just and according to law. By not presenting the 
faculties they put themselves in a false position from which they did not get 
a chance to retire throughout the whole course of the dispute (I.e., p. 366). 

8o The Bishop of Angelopolis 

taught us by the example of St. Ignatius, St. Francis 
Xavier, and other Saints and Superiors of our Society. 
The upshot was that Palafox excommunicated the 
Jesuits and any persons of the diocese who should go to 
confession to them or listen to their sermons, giving out 
that they possessed no faculties, and that their absolu 
tions were consequently invalid and sacrilegious. But 
this was the very point in dispute, and the Bishop must 
have been very well aware that they did possess faculties, 
or why had he allowed them all these years to pursue 
their ministry in peace, often as his own employees? 1 
The remainder of this very painful story, which may be 
read in Astrain or Pastor, 2 does not concern us here. 
Suffice it to say that Palafox appealed to Pope Innocent 
X and won his case, though the Brief ends with these 
words: Tor the rest, the holy Congregation 3 seriously 
exhorts in our Lord and advises the said Bishop that, 
remembering Christian meekness, he act with paternal 
affection towards the Society of Jesus, which, according 
to its praiseworthy institute, has laboured so usefully in 
the Church of God and still labours unweariedly, and 
that, recognizing the Society for a very useful helper in 
the conduct of his diocese, he treat it favourably and 
assume towards it again his first friendliness, which the 
Sacred Congregation, knowing his zeal, piety, and 
vigilance, is sure he will. 4 

1 Astrain mentions another point. Confessions were heard daily in the 
Jesuit churches; on feast-days in hundreds and even thousands. Now it is 
clearly sacrilegious to hear confessions without faculties, but to suppose that 
a religious order systematically committed hundreds and thousands of sacrileges 
a day is so absurd that the idea could not have occurred to anybody except 
Palafox (l.c., pp. 372-3). 2 Geschichte der Papste, vol. xiv, part i, pp. 154-9. 

3 A Congregation of cardinals appointed by the Pope to try the case. 

4 I take pleasure in quoting this from La Theologie morale des Jesuites (1659), 
p. 61. Port-Royal could not very well leave out the words when printing the 
rest of the Brief. 

The Bishop of Angelopolis 81 

Palafox s way of complying with the Pope s wishes 
was to demand that the Jesuits should submit to being 
publicly absolved from the excommunication which he 
had imposed on them. Notice to this effect was posted 
throughout Puebla, including the interesting detail that 
the Fathers must appear with ropes around their necks 
and lighted candles in their hands. When the Bishop 
made known the contents of the Pope s Brief to them, 
they at once submitted their faculties and, behold, it was 
found that of twenty-four Jesuit priests working in Pue- 
bla, sixteen held express licences from none other than 
Senor Don Juan de Palafox himself, while three others 
held the licence of his predecessor in office ! In other 
words these nineteen men, without the use of any privi 
leges whatever, were fully authorized to preach and 
hear confessions in the diocese. * The remaining five had 
obtained their faculties from other Ordinaries and now 
lost them. With that the miserable affair might be 
thought to be over, but Palafox wanted to taste the last 
drop of his revenge by the public humiliation of the 
Jesuits. As they appealed and worsted him, he sat down 
instead and wrote to Pope Innocent on January 8, 1 649, 
the letter of close on 20,000 words (forty-three pages) 
with which La Theologie morale des Jesuites (1659) begins. 

That letter is its own completest and most shattering 
refutation and I only wish I could put every word of it 
before the reader. How any man, after looking through 
it, as Dr. Robertson must have done, could cite it as an 
authority is a thing as mysterious as the dark, irrational 
prejudices which sometimes hold the intellects, even of 
professors, in bondage. For what does Palafox say? 
That these Jesuits, que j ai aime d abord en Nostre 

1 Astrain, with documentary proof, I.e., pp. 39&-g. 


82 The Bishop ofAngelopolis 

Seigneur, comme estant mes amis, et que j aime 
aujourd huy plus ardemment par 1 esprit du mesme 
Sauveur, comme estant mes ennemis , had roused the 
whole diocese against him, bribed the Viceroy who 
hated him mortally to persecute him, declared war on 
his dignity, his person, and his flock, thrown his priests 
into prison, and assembled une troupe de gens armes, 
composee des plus mechants hommes et des plus 
scelerats qu ils purent trouver, afin de s en servir pour 
me prendre, pour me depouiller de ma dignite et pour 
dissiper mon troupeau, choisissant pour cela le jour de 
la Feste du S. Sacrement, comme par une providence 
divine; puisque pour prendre un fivesque, il estoit 
raisonnable de choisir le mesme jour auquel Pfivesque 
des Evesques avoit etc pris . 

He then relates how, considering that it would be une 
entreprise funeste et tragique de defendre la justice de 
ma cause par les armes et 1 effusion du sang de mes en- 
fans spirituels (who, he assures the Pope, aimoient leur 
fivesque avec tendresse ), he was in doubt what to do 
when suddenly he seemed to hear sound in his ears the 
words of our Lord: When men persecute you in one 
town, fly into another. So he decided to preserve his life 
by hiding, car j avois reconnu que le dessein de mes 
ennemies tendoit principalement a me prendre ou a me 
tuer dans quelque meslee, afin qu estant venus a bout 
de Tun ou de 1 autre, ils puissent triompher de ma 
dignite, de mon peuple, et de la justice de ma cause . 
The account of his so-called flight, which he undertook, 
he says, purely to save the State and soften the rage of 
his enemies, is as follows: 

Je m enfuis dans les montagnes, et je cherchay dans la 
compagnie des scorpions, des serpens, et des autres animaux 

The Bishop ofAngelopolis 83 

venimeux, dont cette region est tres abondante, la seurete et 
la paix que je n avois pu trouver dans cette cruelle Com- 
pagnie de Religieux. Apres avoir ainsi passe vingt jours avec 
grand peril de ma vie et un tel besoin de nourriture que nous 
estions quelques fois reduits a n avoir pour tout mets et pour 
tout breuvage que le seul pain de 1 affliction et 1 eau de nos 
larmes, enfin nous trouvasmes une petite cabane, ou je fus 
cache pres de quatre mois. Cependant, les Jesuites n ou- 
blierent rien pour me faire chercher de tous costez, et em- 
ployerent pour cela beaucoup d argent, dans 1 esperance, 
si on me trouvoit, de me contraindre d abandonner ma di- 
gnite, ou de me faire mourir. 

Ainsi par 1 extremite ou je fus reduit, et par les perils ou 
je m exposay, le public fut sauve de cet orage, et la tran- 
quillite temporelle rendue a tout un royaume. Gar pour ce 
qui est de la spirituelle, T.S.P., lorsque Ton a les Jesuites 
pour ennemis il n y a que Jesus Christ, ou V.S. comme son 
Vicaire, qui soit capable de la rendre et de 1 etablir. Leur 
puissance est aujourd huy si terrible, &c. 

A little later, the poor man s persecution-mania causes 
him to lose all sense of the plausible. He tells how the 
Jesuits caused the boys of their colleges to hold lewd 
dances on the feast of St. Ignatius, ou par des repre 
sentations horribles et des postures abominables, ils se 
moquent publiquement de PEvesque, des Prestres, des 
Religieuses, de la dignite Episcopale et mesme de la 
Religion Gatholique . After that, their filling presque 
tout le monde de leur commerce par mer et par terre 
is a mere trifle. The reader has probably had more than 
enough by now, so let me conclude with one or two 
points of detail. In his 12 7th paragraph Palafox says 
that the Jesuit Provincial Ildefonso de Castro expelled 
EIGHTY of his subjects from the Order. Astrain, with the 
records before him (I.e., vol. iv, p. 422), gives the exact 

84 The Bishop of Angelopolis 

number. It was six, or at the most seven. To save 
appearances, Port-Royal doctored the Bishop s Latin 
text when putting it into French. In the Latin, para 
graph 26, he says that he knew for absolutely certain 
that the Jesuits did not possess faculties either from him 
or from his predecessors, but in paragraph 82 he writes: 
Licentias exhibitas accepi, et quas a meis Antecessoribus 
concessas inveni, quae paucissimae erant (because most of 
the Jesuits held faculties from himself!) approbavi. 1 
With regard to the Fathers persecution of bishops, on 
which the letter dilates, there is this tell-tale passage: 
Mais les Jesuites, T.S.P., se voyant armes d un coste du 
bras seculier, et se confiant de 1 autre sur ce que Jean de 
Munnozga, Archevesque de Mexique, non settlement lesfavori- 
soit, mais estoit Vauteur et le chefde leur faction . . . In other 
words, the Jesuits had appealed to Palafox s own Metro 
politan and he had decided in their favour. Him illae 
lachrymae. The last fifty-nine paragraphs of his letter are 
taken up with wild charges against the Jesuits Constitu 
tions, their moral teaching, and their private behaviour. 
In Mexico they are described as being as wealthy as 
Croesus, though at the time they owed five times more 
than they possessed, and throughout the world they are 
declared to be the greatest danger threatening the 
Church, though successive Popes believed them to be 
the Church s ablest defenders. With tears of sorrow that 
he should be compelled by his conscience to do such a 
thing, Palafox concludes with an appeal to the Pope in 
language of mingled vehemence and pathos either to 
suppress the Jesuits altogether or radically to change 
their Constitutions. The letter had no effect whatever 

1 Cited in Astrain, I.e., p. 404. I have not seen the Latin text. The French 
version of the above extracts makes changes to get rid of the glaring contra 

The Bishop of Angelopolis 85 

in Rome. Rome was old and wise and had met such 
men as Palafox before. He was patently unbalanced, 
a headstrong, domineering man who, whatever his 
private virtue on which the Jansenists were so given to 
harping, had no capacity at all for government. The 
Spanish authorities realized it after some further experi 
ence of his unhappy character and recalled him to his 
native country, where he died in peace. According to 
the Encyclopaedia Britannica it was the Jesuits who frus 
trated the efforts made by Jansenists and Bourbon kings 
to secure his beatification but, unfortunately for the 
story, the Jesuits had been some years suppressed when 
the non-placet of the Holy See put an end to his chances. 
And now we must say good-bye to him, though we have 
given only a small sample of his quality. It is difficult to 
believe that he was quite sane, and so the more strange 
that any man possessed of the least critical sense should 
trust a word of his letter without plenty of corroborative 
evidence. Yet, on the sole strength of it, and of a similar 
document in La Morale pratique des Jesuites, Dr. Robert 
son assures his readers that there is no reason to suppose 
that the descriptions of the trading activities of the 
Jesuits are untrue in any material particular . 1 

As a result of the legend of Jesuit wealth, sanguine 
romantic souls still dream of buried treasure in the wilds 
of Paraguay. Was it not only a year or two ago that a 
party of stalwarts left England to find it? And never a 
peso did they find, any more than did the other numer 
ous expeditions and treasure-hunting parties which 
have been organized from time to time in various 
countries for the same purpose. As for the Jesuits of 
South America attempting to get all the trade, all the 

1 Aspects of the Rise of Economic Individualism, p. 109, n. 2. 

86 The Bishop of Angelopolis 

transport and banking facilities into their hands (As 
pects, p. 1 08), it would, perhaps, be too much to expect 
of Dr. Robertson that he should have studied Pablo 
Hernandez exhaustive and conclusive work, Organiza 
tion Social de lasDoctrinas Guaranies de la Compania de Jesus, 1 
but he might have glanced at Muratori s essay on the 
South American Jesuits, which has been translated into 
English, or turned a page or two of Gunninghame 
Graham s little classic, A Vanished Arcadia. It will be 
pleasant to conclude with a few paragraphs of that great 
gentleman who has made the subject of which he speaks 
peculiarly his own, not merely out of books but by much 
brave and splendid adventuring: 

Your Jesuit is, as we know, the most tremendous wild 
fowl that the world has known. . . . But into the question of 
the Jesuits I cannot enter, as it entails command of far more 
foot and half-foot words than I can muster. Still, in America, 
and most of all in Paraguay, I hope to show that the Order 
did much good, and worked amongst the Indians like 
apostles, receiving an apostle s true reward of calumny, of 
stripes, of blows, and journeying hungry, athirst, on foot, in 
perils oft, from the great cataract of the Parana to the 
recessses of the Tarumensian woods. Little enough I per 
sonally care for the political aspect of their commonwealth. 
. . . For theories of advancement, and as to certain arbitrary 
ideas of the rights of man ... I give a fico yes, your fico 
of Spain holding that the best right that a man can have 
is to be happy after the way that pleases him most. And that 
the Jesuits rendered the Indians in Paraguay happy is cer 
tain. ... It is certain the Jesuits in Paraguay had faith fit to 
remove all mountains, as the brief stories of their lives, so 
often ending with a rude field-cross by the corner of some 
forest, and the incription hie occisus esf, survive to show. . . . 

All the reports of riches amassed in Paraguay by the 

1 Two volumes of 1,324 pages, fully documented. Barcelona, 1913. 

The Bishop of Angelopolis 87 

Jesuits, after the expulsion of their Order, proved to be un 
true; nothing of any consequence was found in any of the 
towns, although the Jesuits had no warning of their expul 
sion, and had no time for preparation or for concealment of 
their gold. Although they stood to the Indians almost in the 
light of gods, and had control of an armed force larger by 
far than any which the temporal power could have disposed 
of, they did not resist, but silently departed from the rich 
territories which their care and industry had formed. 

Rightly, or wrongly, but according to their lights, they 
strove to teach the Indian population all the best part of 
European progress of the times in which they lived, shielding 
them sedulously from all contact with commercialism, and 
standing between them and the Spanish settlers, who would 
have treated them as slaves. These were their crimes. . . .* 

1 A Vanished Arcadia, London, 1901, pp. viii xii. 


npHE contents of this little book must seem annoyingly 
JL unrelated, but that is due to the diversity of com 
plaint which Dr. Robertson has against the Jesuits. In 
his pages they are everything by turns and nothing 
good, traders out of their sphere, exploiters disguised 
as evangelists, time-servers, and unscrupulous casuists. 
All their sympathies, we are to believe, were for pushful, 
progressive people who had dedicated their pieties to 
the new god of Big Business. To make the burden of a 
Christian conscience light for such men would appear 
to have been their chief concern, nor could any one 
guess from reading this historian that they often beg 
gared themselves to relieve other people s necessities 
and had made almost a habit of dying in the service of 
the plague-stricken. Sophists, economists, and calcu 
lators, that is what they were, we must understand, for 
all their Xaviers and Glavers. To prove it, Dr. Robert 
son provides a variety of cases, derived from his usual 
repertory or from some magazine articles. An examina 
tion of these will not be alien to the demands of fair play 
which even Jesuits have a right to expect from their 


On page 104 of Aspects of the Rise of Economic Indi 
vidualism we read: When a Jesuit cardinal approves 
of "sweating" we know that we have found a religion 
which has moved far from medieval ideas into the world 
of laissez-faire? No one will deny that that is a serious 
charge against the Jesuits in general, since the Cardinal 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 89 

in question was Juan de Lugo, probably the greatest 
and most representative of their theologians. We might 
expect, then, to find it based on very full and careful 
evidence, but all we get from Dr. Robertson is a passage 
of four lines out of a Belgian review. They are as fol 
lows: { Le card, de Lugo dit que le salaire, qui ne donne 
pas a Pouvrier de quoi se nourrir et se vetir decemment, 
et a fortiori de quoi entretenir sa famille, n est pas tou- 
jours injuste. Tout cela, traite ainsi incidemment, 
revele une coutume conforme. 1 The writer of these 
words gives a reference to de Lugo which Dr. Robert 
son strangely omits. Do the words embody a faithful 
account of de Lugo s teaching, and, above all, is Dr. 
Robertson justified in proceeding, on the strength of 
them, to charge with such abominable opinions a man 
who is known to have spent most of his income as a 
cardinal on the poor of Rome? 2 Let us see. 

The context of the incriminated passage runs as 
follows: That is considered a just wage for a house 
hold employee (famulus) which amounts at least to the 
lowest grade of wage usually and customarily paid to 
such persons in that place for that type of work. But 
observe that you must not argue, in estimating the just 
wage due, from the fact that some people may be in the 
habit of giving more than is usual to their servants. . . . 
Nor, in the third place, is even that wage always unjust 
which does not suffice for the proper maintenance and 
clothing of the servant, and, much less so, one with 
which the servant may not be able to support himself, 
his wife, and his children. For the case occurs where 

1 V. Brants in the Revue d Histoire Ecclesiastique, Louvain, t. xiii, no. i (15 Jan 
vier 1912), p. 88, n. i. 

z For de Lugo s charities cf. Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius, Innsbruck 1871, 
vol. i, p. 693. 

go Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

the service rendered is not deserving of so large a wage, 
and many are satisfied with the one given them because 
they are able at the same time to attend to other busi 
ness whereby they may supply and provide for them 
selves what is lacking for their sustenance and clothing, 
as Molina observes, n. 2. 1 All through this passage de 
Lugo uses the word famulus, which the French writer 
quoted by Dr. Robertson incorrectly translates ouvrier. 
An ouvrier is a wage-earner in the modern sense, but de 
Lugo was thinking of quite a different type of worker, 
and not at all of full-time wage-earners such as we 
know, who derive no advantage from their work beyond 
the wage given for it and are not allowed time to make 
good its possible shortcomings by employing their ener 
gies in other directions. That this was the truth of the 
matter becomes obvious in the Cardinal s next sen 
tences, for he goes on to illustrate what he means from 
the cases of apprentices, choristers, pages in noble 
families, and others, who make a bargain with the 
parties they serve, and are not only willing to take less 
than what we call a living wage, but even to pay for 
the concomitant opportunities of training and educa 
tion which are put within their reach. 

If there is no such bargain, the servant leaving the 
matter to the master s discretion, then, says de Lugo, 
the master is obliged to give a just wage, such as is 
commonly and usually given to others for work of the 
same kind , and, if he fails to do so, servants are not to 
be blamed who, in such circumstances and unable with 
out great difficulty to obtain their rights, secretly take 
from their master s goods what is necessary for their 

1 Joannis de Lugo, Disputationes sckolasticae et morales, editio nova, Parisiis 
1860, t. vii, pp. 456-7. Tractatus de Justitia et Jure, disp. xxix, sec. iii, n. 62. 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 91 

support . So far, then, from approving sweating , the 
Cardinal justified recourse to occult compensation, but, 
before jumping to the conclusion that he thus condoned 
petty thefts, it would be well to read what he has to say 
Defurtisfamulorum. 1 We have seen already in Chapter I 
what de Lugo taught on the subject of the just price, 
and that in buying and selling he does not allow any 
advantage whatever to be taken of another s subjective 
need. That principle applies to the purchase or hire of 
labour in exactly the same way as it does to the pur 
chase or hire of goods. The communis aestimatio may not 
have been a perfect standard of just values, but it was 
the fairest standard men could think of in those days 
before the modern organization of industry. When the 
Cardinal said that a non-living wage need not always 
be unjust, he was thinking exclusively of servants with 
other employments to eke out their earnings or of such 
as derived educational advantages from their work to 
compensate them for the smallness of their pay. What 
fair-minded man will say that such people were 
sweated , and with Juan de Lugo s approval? In 
stead, then, of having found a religion which has 
moved far from medieval ideas into the world of 
laissez-faire , Dr. Robertson has found a mare s nest. 


A Jesuit casuist is asked whether an innkeeper may 
ask a guest to dine on a fast day, knowing that he is 
issuing an invitation to sin. He answers that it may be 
taken as a probable opinion that it is lawful, because 
the innkeeper s primary intention is not to incite to sin, 
but to make a profit out of the provision of a meal. 

1 Disp. XVI, sec. iv, par. z. 

92 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

How does this compare with the prohibition of Satur 
day and Monday markets in Scotland ? (Aspects, p. 1 04.) 
Through being too dependent on La Theologie morale 
des Jesuites, Dr. Robertson has propounded this case 
quite incorrectly. Tambourin, to whom he refers, 
meaning Tamburini, says nothing about an innkeeper 
inviting a guest to dine. In those old times the Lenten 
regulations were much more severe than at present. 
On fast days, not only were people obliged as at present 
to confine themselves to one square meal, but at that 
meal as well as at the two permitted collations they 
might not eat anything except Lenten fare, which ex 
cluded all flesh meat, milk, butter, cheese, and eggs. 
In other words, one was more or less confined to dry 
bread, fish, and vegetables. Tamburini s case turns on 
the question whether innkeepers and shopkeepers may 
sell such lawful fare to purchasers whom they know 
will use it for two square meals or in some other way 
contrary to Lenten discipline. The easiest means of 
determining Tamburini s doctrine will be to give a 
translation of his section, De cauponibus et vendentibus 

You ask, in the third place, how innkeepers and other 
tradesmen ought to act during Lent towards customers who 
are not going to fast? I answer that, in order to meet your 
query, we must distinguish various cases. 

1 . When the innkeeper or tradesman has a good idea that 
his customers will not break the fast, you may take it for 
certain that it is lawful for him to serve them, procure goods 
for them, and even invite them to buy, because he is not 
co-operating with any sin. 

2. But what if the innkeeper or tradesman, dealing in 
Lenten fare, has a doubt as to whether his customers may 
not break the fast by making a number of meals of the said 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 93 

Lenten fare? I reply that it is still lawful for him to sell, 
because no one is to be presumed bad without proof to the 
contrary. The innkeeper has no right to think that his cus 
tomers are desirous of sinning, and consequently he may 
freely serve them and sell to them. 

3. But what if the seller of Lenten fare knows that the 
purchasers will probably or certainly violate the fast? I 
reply with Sanchez and Diana that even so the lawfulness of 
his selling is sufficiently probable. The reason for this con 
cession is that the provision of goods by the innkeeper or 
tradesman, or even their spontaneous solicitation of custom, 
is not done by them as a direct allurement to disregard of 
the fast and so, not as a direct allurement to sin, but for the 
sake of making a profit. The purchasers know that right 
well, and, on the other hand, the act of supplying the Lenten 
fare and of inviting the customer to buy it is in itself indif 
ferent, since the food could be purchased for a lawful use. 

But you will say that the purchase is connected with the 
sin of violating the fast? I answer that it is so connected 
through the malice of the purchasers, and the sellers are 
excused by their very trade which they exercise honestly 
when they sell the permitted Lenten fare about which we 
are now speaking. . . . 

4. Having dealt with the case of those who sell lawful 
fare, there arises a twofold question, first, as to what is to 
be thought of an innkeeper who sells or serves dairy-produce 
(lacticinia) on fast-days? and, secondly, what is to be thought 
of one who sells or serves meat on the same days? 

To these questions Tamburini, following Sanchez, 
replies that if a person does not possess a dispensation, 
in the shape of a Crusader s Bull or otherwise, to take 
milk, butter, cheese, and eggs, and the innkeeper knows 
that he does not possess it, then it is not lawful for the 
latter to sell those goods on a fast day, nor does his 
trade excuse him in the matter. Still less does it 

94 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

provide him with an excuse to sell meat. Following Loth, 
Tamburini writes: In Catholic districts it is a grave sin for 
innkeepers to put meat on the table of their guests on a fast day 
and whoever did so indifferently would be heavily punished. . . . 
I have said indifferently , because it is allowed in some special 
cases by reason of evident necessity, arising from the illness of 
a guest, or because there is nothing else to put before the company. 
In Protestant countries where meat is provided on 
fast days by all other innkeepers, Tamburini, still 
following Loth, permits a Catholic member of the trade 
to serve it in two sets of circumstances, (i) if his failure 
to do so might cause him to be prosecuted in the Courts, 
and (2) on condition that he does not serve the meat 
unless expressly asked for it. 1 I think that Tamburini s 
teaching, as thus unfolded from his own text, does not 
serve Dr. Robertson s purpose quite so well as the 
tendentious and misleading version which he gives out 
of La Theologie morale. 


In Seville the Jesuit College even underwent a bank 
ruptcy caused by trading losses. The steward of the 
College borrowed 450,000 ducats at interest. With 
this he carried on trade. He shipped linens, iron, 
saffron, cinnamon; he built houses and mills; bought 
estates and gardens and flocks. Then the College went 
bankrupt in suspicious circumstances, as the account 
books were removed, and the courts were unable to 
secure information about the affair. This raised a 
clamour through the countryside (Aspects, pp. 108-9). 
Here I bow to Dr. Robertson and say, Well hit! The 

1 Thomae Tamburini, Tractatus Quinque, in Quinque Ecclesiae Praecepta, opus 
posthumum, Venetiis 1719, p. 105, nn. 10-18. 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 95 

story as he tells it is substantially true, though, as I shall 
show, the conclusion he would have us draw from it is 
a complete non sequitur. His reference is to La Morale 
pratique des Jesuites, but it was too good a story to be 
omitted from La Theologie morale either, and here it is 
as Monseigneur of Angelopolis saw it: 

Toute la grande et populeuse ville de Seville est en pleurs, 
T.S.P. Les veuves de ce pays, les pupilles, les orphelins, les 
vierges abandonnees de tout le monde, les bons Prestres, et 
les seculiers se baignent avec cris et avec larmes d avoir 
este trompez miserablement par les Jesuites, qui apres avoir 
tire d eux plus de quatre cent mille ducats, et les avoir 
despensez pour leurs usages particuliers, ne les ont payez que 
d une honteuse banqueroute. . . . Ainsi cette grande multi 
tude de personnes qui sont reduites a Paumosne, demande 
aujourd huy avec larmes devant les Tribunaux seculiers 
P argent qu ils ont preste aux Jesuites, qui estoit aux uns tout 
leur bien, aux autres leur dot, aux autres ce qu ils avoient 
en reserve, aux autres ce qui leur restoit pour vivre; et ils 
declament en mesme temps centre la perfidie de ces Reli- 
gieux, et les couvrent de confusion, et de deshonneur dans 
le public. 1 

The nonsense about widows and orphans is Palafox s 
invention, as the creditors of the College were practi 
cally all traders like the steward himself, and a con 
siderable number were the steward s kinsmen, includ 
ing two of his brothers. But let us see who he was and 
to what extent the Jesuits in general may be fairly 
accounted responsible for his misdemeanours. He was 
a lay-brother named Andrew Villar Goitia from the 
Province of Biscay, who, before becoming a Jesuit, had 
acquired some reputation as an able man of affairs. In 
1632 Villar was appointed procurator of the flourishing 

1 La Theologie morale des Jesuites, premiere partie, p. 36. 

96 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

College of St. Hermenegild in Seville, which at the time 
had upwards of nine hundred students on its roll, and 
an annual revenue of 8,248 ducats. 1 What the duties 
and responsibilities of a procurator in a Jesuit College 
were may be seen in the Society s Constitutions, which 
were republished, for anybody to read, at Antwerp in 
1635. There we find among the Rules for Procurators 
no fewer than six prescribing the most exact and de 
tailed care in the keeping of books, as well as this 
general advertisement: He is to understand that every 
thing with an appearance of secular trade in the cultiva 
tion of land, the disposal of farm-produce in markets, 
and similar matters, is prohibited to members of our 
Society. 2 The examples given here are noteworthy, 
because to cultivate land and dispose of its products in 
markets is not really trade at all, in the sense in which 
canon law has immemorially forbidden it to clerics. It 
is trade in that sense to buy something with intent to 
sell it again, unchanged, at a higher price. But the 
seventh General Congregation of the Society of Jesus 
which met in 161516 declared in its 84th decree that 
it was forbidden to any Jesuit to buy fields with a view 
to drawing profit from their cultivation; to buy goods 
in order to work on them and then sell them improved 
at a dearer price; to pay printing-houses for the produc 
tion of Jesuit books, and then take over the sale of the 
volumes; to have private printing-presses in the colleges 
for the purpose of producing books to be sold to externs . 
Besides this ordinary and very definite legislation 

1 Astrain, I.e., vol. v, p. 40. 

2 Omnia, quae speciem habent saecularis negotiationis, in colendis videlicet 
agris, vendendis in foro fructibus, et similibus, intelligat prohibita esse nostris. 
Constitutiones Societatis Jesu et Examen cum Dedarationibus, Antwerpiae 1635, 
pp. 221-2. 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 97 

there was the case-law constituted by the replies of 
Jesuit Generals to questions occasionally sent them. 
Thus Aquaviva was asked in 1594 whether in a ship, 
hired to convey a cargo of wheat to some missionary 
country, it would be lawful to send back a cargo of salt 
for sale, so as to avoid returning the vessel empty. His 
answer was: Non permittendum . . . unless, perhaps, out 
of charitable regard for the poor the salt is to be sold 
at the same price as that for which it was purchased. 
On being asked whether a Jesuit procurator might 
lend money to a merchant, the agreement being that 
he should share the profit or loss of the business on 
which the merchant employed it, another General, 
Muzio Vitelleschi, answered, March 16, 1641: That 
is trading and consequently forbidden to us. 

There are plenty more examples of this kind, but 
neither the general nor the particular legislation counted 
for much with Brother Andrew of St. Hermenegild s, 
Seville. He was an utterly unscrupulous person, not in 
the least in the interests of the College, but in the 
interests of his own family. As came out in the judicial 
investigations, the College had never made a penny out 
of his financial transactions, which he carried on secretly 
with the aid of some Biscayan merchants in Seville. To 
keep his dealings from the notice of his superiors he did 
not hesitate to falsify the College accounts over a num 
ber of years. But at last, in 1642, they began to suspect 
that something was amiss and high time, too! The 
Brother was put under an order of obedience to reveal 
what he had done, and, thus constrained, he admitted 
to having contracted a debt of 80,000 ducats. The 
superiors then put the affair in the hands of an outside 
official, who by dint of laborious inquiries found that the 


98 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

debts were more than five times the amount to which 
Villar had confessed. According to his books, the in 
come of the College was 13,749 ducats, but, when 
pressed to account for that sum a year after he had 
entered it, he said that the figure should have been 
9,025 ducats, and finally admitted that the true amount 
was 5,413 ducats. 

It quickly became known outside that Villar had 

tampered with his accounts, and the merchants who had 

invested money in his transactions naturally raised a 

clamour. Only one man, however, Juan Onofre de 

Salazar, accused the Jesuit superior of knowing about 

Villar s dealings, and he was not able to sustain his 

charge. That he should have known and that he was 

culpably negligent, no Jesuit would dream of denying, 

though it has to be said for him that Villar bore a good 

reputation and had never previously been suspected of 

underhand tricks. If we knew more about Villar s two 

merchant brothers, Lorenzo and Gregorio, who had 

invested respectively six million maravedes and twelve 

thousand pesos in his ventures, we might be able to 

understand the deplorable affair better. It resulted in 

the ruin, not, as Bishop Palafox would have us believe, 

of widows and orphans whose tears, on his showing, 

must have caused the Guadalquivir to overflow, but of 

the once splendid College, which, to pay off Villar s 

relatives and other creditors, had to dispose of practically 

all its goods and chattels. A sad story, indeed, but how 

much does it contribute, when told fairly, as Astrain tells 

it from the reports of the judicial investigation, 1 to the 

support of Dr. Robertson s universal proposition that 

the Jesuits certainly acted up to the maxim, there is 

1 L.C., pp. 40-7. 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 99 

nothing like business ? I am not forgetting Lavalette, 
but, as he was too late for inclusion in La Morale pratique, 
Dr. Robertson seems to be unaware that he ever existed 
and so dispenses me from the necessity of writing about 
him. Instead, we may proceed to examine a specula 
tive case of bankruptcy ethics, first rendered famous 
(or infamous) by Pascal and now newly edited by 
Dr. Robertson. 


A Jesuit affirms that a bankrupt is entitled to retain 
as much from his creditors as will maintain him decor 
ously ut decore vivat and it is explained that this must 
not be taken as an incitement to "long-firm" frauds, 
for the Jesuits do not favour aggrandizement by in 
justice but: "if the casuists have milder sentiments, it 
is for the good merchants, who have received of their 
fathers an honourable estate and position, or else who 
have arrived by good and legitimate ways to a better 
position than their birth brought them". This is, of 
course, precisely what is alleged to be an innovation of 
the Puritans (Aspects, p. 104; reference to Pirot, Apolo- 
gie pour les Casuistes) . It would be useful to know what 
precisely Dr. Robertson means by the adverb decorously 
in this context. In his exposition, he rather mixes up r 
a number of distinct cases which require careful sorting, 
but before doing that we may consider for a moment 
Pascal s version of the matter. It is his Jesuit marionette, 
on whom with Puckish delight he has fixed an ass s 
head, that makes the following speech: 

J aurois bien encore d autres methodes a vous enseigner; 
mais celles-la suffisent, et j ay a vous entretenir de ceux qui 
sont mal dans leurs affaires. Nos Peres ont pense a les 
soulager selon Pestat ou ils sont. Car s ils n ont pas assez de 

ioo Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

bien pour subsister honnestement et payer leurs dettes tout 
ensemble, on leur permet d en mettre une partie a couvert 
en faisant banqueroute a leurs creanciers. C est ce que 
nostre Pere Lessius a decide et qu Escobar confirme au 
tr. 3, ex. 2, n. 163: Celuy quijait banqueroute peut-il en seurete 
de conscience retenir de ses biens autant qu il est necessaire pourfaire 
subsister safamille avec honneur, ne indecore vivat? Je soutiens que 
ouy avec Lessius , et mesme encore qu il les eust gagnez par des injus 
tices et des crimes connus de tout le monde, ex injustitia et notorio 
delicti, quoy que en ce cos il n enpuissepas retenir en une aussi grande 
quantite qu autrement. Comment ! mon Pere, par quelle estrange 
charite voulez-vous que ces biens demeurent plustost a celuy 
qui les a volez par ses concussions pour le faire subsister avec 
honneur, qu a ses creanciers a qui ils appartiennent legitime- 
ment et que vous reduisez par la dans la pauvrete? On ne 
peut pas, dit le Pere, contenter tout le monde, et nos Peres 
ont pense particulierement a soulager ces miserables. 1 

In his answer to this passage, Pirot, who merely re 
produces the view of Lessius, cries out upon Pascal for 
translating the phrase ne indecore vivat by the words 
pour vivre avec honneur. It is a famous point of contention, 
and some even of Pascal s good friends venture to 
whisper a word of criticism. Dr. Stewart, in his excel 
lent edition of the Provinciates (p. 282), warmly defends 
him, but admits that the full opinion of Lessius con 
cerning bankrupts is not given in the paragraph cited 
above. Escobar, poor man, is once again made to bear 
the blame. The fault is not Pascal s but Escobar s, who 
fails to chronicle the exception made by Leys [Lessius] 
in the case of fraudulent bankrupts and spendthrift 
nobles. As I suggested before, that defence might be 
acceptable for a man who went astray on a point of 
fact affecting nobody s reputation, but surely it does 
not excuse a person whose whole set purpose and inten- 

1 Huitieme Lettre. 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 101 

tion is to pillory and defame living men, entitled by the 
law of God and nature as much as he to their good 

What, then, precisely did Lessius teach with regard 
to this matter? He taught, (i) that a man reduced to 
extreme need and unable to pay his creditors without 
sacrificing both his own and his children s lives is not 
obliged to pay, always presupposing that he cannot by 
any other lawful means support his family; (2) that a 
man who has come down in the world, so as to be in 
very great need, can conscientiously defer the payment 
of his debts until his fortunes improve, provided that 
his creditor is not in the same straits as himself; (3) that 
a man who has ruined his estate by extravagance or by 
vice must pay his debts without delay, even if it means 
the loss of his social status (De Justitia et Jure, lib. 2, 
cap. 1 6, dub. i). With regard to bankrupts who did 
not acquire their fortunes by unjust means nor fail 
through their own extravagance, he teaches first that 
they are not obliged to reduce themselves to beggary 
in order to pay in full, and that even a man who had 
amassed his fortune by fraud might retain enough to 
support life. Then comes the much more delicate point 
whether one who has made his fortune fairly and lost 
it without fault, through a shipwreck for instance, may 
retain enough to prevent him from altogether sinking 
in the social scale. Such a one, he says, can conceal as 
much as is necessary for him to live sparingly and 
modestly according to his station ut tenuiter vivat 
secundum suum statum. This, he continues, is the teach 
ing of Pedro Navarrus, Silvestro Mazzolini, O.P., and 
others, who admit that the bankrupt in question can 
retain sufficient to keep him from want ut non egeat 

102 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

or, as Silvestro says expressly, lest otherwise he be 
obliged to live in a way that spells disgrace ne aliqua- 
tenus indecenter vivat. The same is to be gathered plainly 
from the Code of Law cited above, especially with re 
gard to goods acquired by a man after his bankruptcy, 
from which even a debtor who is such through his own 
fault can retain as much as is necessary for him to live 
without dishonour, according to his condition ut pro 
sua conditione non indecore vivat. 1 The three adverbs used 
here by Lessius, tenuiter, indecenter, and indecore, are 
plainly meant by him to convey the same idea. He is 
interpreting the law as it stood in the Low Countries 
in his day, and his view is that it allows a man who has 
gained his fortune lawfully and become bankrupt inno 
cently to retain just so much of the property possessed 
by him at the time of his bankruptcy, or subsequently 
acquired, as will enable him to live without dishonour 
and disgrace in the eyes of those who belong to the 
station to which he has himself legitimately risen, while 
the man who has gained his fortune lawfully but become 
bankrupt through his own fault is allowed to retain the 
same amount, only from property acquired after his 
bankruptcy. That Lessius was a good interpreter of 
the law of his country would seem to be indicated by 
the fact that its Governor, Albert the Pious, always 
kept the treatise, De Justitia et Jure, on his table, c uti 
fidelissimum Consiliarium . 2 

It may interest the reader to see how this teaching of 
Lessius, muddled if not misrepresented by Pascal, com 
pares with the teaching of non-Jesuit Catholic theolo 
gians at the present day. Here, then, are the opinions 

1 De Justitia et Jure, lib. 2, cap. 16, dub. 3, nn. 42-5. 

2 De Vita et Moribus R. P. Leonardi Lessii, Parisiis 1644, p. 39. Lessius died 
in 1626. 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 103 

of two of the most eminent among them, the Domini 
can, Father Prummer, and the Redemptorist, Father 

Prummer: A debtor who becomes bankrupt can, 
according to the natural and positive law, retain those 
goods which are absolutely necessary for an honest 
and humble living, and those goods too which are 
necessary means to the opening of a new small business. 
The same holds true for the wife and children of the 

Aertnys: C A debtor who becomes bankrupt can, by 
the natural law, retain what is necessary for his own 
and his family s honest, though modest, support, ac 
cording to his condition; for no one is obliged to reduce 
himself to grave need, or altogether to give up a status 
justly acquired, in order to make restitution. Accord 
ingly, he does not sin by concealing such assets, but he 
must beware of swearing falsely before a judge. This 
teaching of Aertnys is identical with that of St. Al- 
phonsus Liguori, the Founder of the Redemptorists, on 
which the Catholic Church has set her official seal. It 
is identical too, as far as a careful scrutiny has enabled 
me to judge, with the teaching of Leonard Lessius, 
however one chooses to translate ut non indecore vivat, and 
I cannot see that it affords the least support to Dr. 
Robertson s thesis that the Jesuits had entered a sort of 
conspiracy to make the yoke of conscience light for 
merchants. Indeed, might not one urge that had they 
been in the least concerned to promote trade their cue 
would have been to make things utterly intolerable for 
the bankrupt, who is trade s most dangerous enemy? 
But, of course, they were not in the least concerned 
to promote trade. They were concerned to promote 

104 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

justice and to allow unfortunate men whatever measure 
of mercy the law of nature and the law of their country 
did not deny them. 


We have reached him at last! I personally confess to 
a feeling of affection for this man, who, beyond all 
possible doubt, is the most universally decried Jesuit 
that ever lived. I have noticed the words used of him 
by a man not of his own order who knew him well, 
Pater pauperum et consolator afBictorum Father of 
the poor and consoler of people in sorrow. In the 
British Museum I have turned over the pages of his 
published poems, great long things, all about our 
Lady and the Saints, not remarkable for exquisite taste 
but redolent of a childlike piety that makes one forget 
the formal crudities. Here is a man, you feel, to whom 
the Mother of God and St. Ignatius are not figures in 
a niche, good for a perfunctory prayer, but warm, 
throbbing, living, day-to-day friends, as truly loved as 
the noble lady and grand sefior who were his earthly 
parents. 1 For Antonio de Escobar y Mendoza came of 
great stock on both sides, a race of warriors and states 
men, second to none in the high romance of Spain. He 
was born in 1589 and became a Jesuit at the age of 
sixteen. As master in the schools, for which he composed 
no fewer than 160 dialogues and comedies to be acted 
by the boys on festive occasions, he probably had the 

1 The titles of his published poems are: (i) San Ignacio de Loyola, Poema 
heroico; (2) Historia de la Virgen Madre de Dios desde supurisima Conception hasta su 
gloriosa Asuncion, Poema heroico; (3) Gonzaga, Poema lyrico. In manuscript he left 
a whole series of poems in the shape of sacred allegories, Autos sacramentales, 
another series on the Blessed Virgin s Immaculate Conception, which was a 
doctrine exceedingly dear to him, a third series on Jesuit Saints and martyrs, 
and a fourth devoted to the instruction of youth, including a catechism in 
rhyme. He was a great friend of young people. 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 105 

great poet Galderon among his pupils. When ordained 
priest his literary activity became well-nigh incredible. 
The first of his learned works to be published was a 
huge folio of exegesis, In Caput VI Joannis de augustissimo 
ineffabilis Eucharistiae arcano. That was followed by an 
enormous commentary in twelve great volumes on the 
Sunday and feast-day Gospels for the use of preachers, 
which, even to-day, they would find helpful if they had 
recourse to it. Then came a complete commentary on 
the Bible in fourteen volumes of which a non-Jesuit 
student wrote: In this book I have found united the 
good things which separately make the fortunes of other 
authors. And everything is put better, in the most 
suitable order, expressed with a natural eloquence, un 
affected, gravely and most sweetly. Nor is anything 
forgotten which might conduce to the literal and moral 
understanding of the sacred text. 1 In 1652 Escobar 
brought out yet another folio volume of commentary 
on the Old Testament to help preachers. Two more 
folios appeared at different times, the first, On Para 
dise, or the Beauty of Virtue , and the second On the 
Ten Plagues of Egypt, or the Foulness of Sin . Besides 
these, he also published A hundred Spiritual Exhorta 
tions on the Rules of our Father Ignatius , and in the 
last year of his life, when he was eighty, a great tome, 
the child of my old age , In Canticum Canticorum, sive 
de Mariae Deiparae Elogiis. On his desk, when he died, 
was another volume, almost completed, De Mariae 
Deiparae Conceptione immaculata. Escobar never had a 
secretary and wrote every one of his millions of words 
with his own hand. 

1 Foreword by Emanuel Astete, of the Order of Minims, professor of theology 
in Rome and Valladolid, to the second volume of Escobar s Universae Theologiae 
moralis receptiores sententiae. 

io6 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

The writings mentioned afford overwhelming proof 
that the one big aim in life of this good man was to 
promote the glory of God and the salvation of his 
neighbour. But there is something more. In his own 
day he was regarded primarily as a missioner, one 
whose active, indefatigable work for souls made people 
astonished that he should have been able to write any 
thing at all. Besides his regular sermons in Valladolid 
throughout the year and those which he delivered as 
director of the flourishing sodality of our Lady, he 
preached Lenten courses, involving several sermons a 
week, for fifty years in succession, and these in the most 
famous pulpits of Spain. Never once during the whole 
of that period till the last year of his life did he dispense 
himself from the rigorous fast of Lent, so that people 
used to marvel how he could do all he did without 
collapsing. To the poor in their homes, the sick, the 
inmates of hospitals and prisons he was a visitor of un 
failing regularity, and nothing he could do for their 
comfort was ever too much. No wonder that when he 
died the whole town went into mourning. Such was 
Antonio Escobar, Tineffable Escobar, celebre et ridi 
cule pour reternite! whose doctrines { ont ete et sont 
encore Pobjet de la reprobation universelle et du degout 
des honnetes gens . 1 One wonders what the Escobars 
of old, a proud and valiant race, would have thought 
could they have known that, by Pascal s doing, their 
name was going into the French language as a synonym 
for prevarication! 2 

1 A Catholic opinion and (I think) a non-Catholic one. Victor Giraud, 
La vie heroique de Blaise Pascal, Paris, 1923, p. 116; Augustin Gazier, Blaise 
Pascal et Antoine Escobar, Paris, 1912, p. 33. 

2 Cf. any moderate-sized French dictionary under the words, escobar, esco- 
barder, escobarderie. Talking of prevarication, for which Pascal and his friends 
professed such a horror, there is the following good story in the Memoires of the 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 107 

Now it was precisely his zeal and charity which 
brought upon Escobar the opprobrium that we are so 
often invited to endorse, for just as he tried to help 
priests in the pulpit with his many volumes of sermon 
material, so did he try to help priests in the confessional 
by bringing out in Spanish a hand-book of moral 
theology for the use of confessors. Within a brief period 
this book ran into thirty-seven editions and never a soul 
was found in all Catholic Spain to do anything but 
praise it. Then, in 1644, Father Antonio put it into 
Latin under the title Liber theologiae moralis, and had 
it published at Lyons, so that it might become more 
widely useful. For more than ten years it circulated 
freely in France and went into new editions, without a 
word of criticism from any quarter. During the same 
period it was also published in Germany, Italy, and 
Belgium; enjoying everywhere the favour it had met 
with in Spain. The book was read, of course, only by 
priests, as no others would have been interested, or 
indeed able to understand it properly, however much 
Latin they knew. Yet to listen to some apologists for 
Pascal, one would think it must have had the vogue 
among all classes of a novel by Edgar Wallace. We are 
told, for instance, by M. Jacques Chevalier that the 

Abbe de Font-Chateau, compiler of the first two volumes of La Morale pratique 
des Jesuites. When, in March 1656, the solitaries of Port-Royal des Champs 
were obliged to disperse, two remained behind, disguised as poor peasants. 
On March 3Oth, Lieutenant d Aubray made an official visit by order of the 
Government to see whether the solitaries had obeyed the law. Addressing 
himself to one of the pretended peasants named Charles, he asked where was 
the imprimerie. Charles, imitating a peasant s speech, answered that he did not 
know any nun of that name, whereupon the magistrate getting angry, demanded 
to be taken to the press at once. Charles then led him grumblingly to a shed 
where his brother-solitary, Bouilly, dressed as a vigneron, was diligently pressing 
out grapes! The grave doctors of Port-Royal laughed heartily over this 
incident, and we hope that Pascal joined in their merriment. 

io8 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

Provinciates, which were mainly an onslaught on the 
Liber theologiae moralis, are still a noteworthy and suc 
cessful attempt to put men s consciences on their guard 
against laxity, to remind them of the integrity of the 
moral obligation [as if Escobar didn t!], the purity of 
Christian life, and the paramount importance of not 
taking the decisions of casuistry for rules of universal 
ethics . 1 At the present day there are infinitely more 
manuals of moral theology in circulation than in Pas 
cal s time, yet who will be so silly as to suggest that they 
are read widely by lay Catholics or have the slightest 
direct influence on their lives? The fact is that in so far 
as moral text-books have done any harm it has been 
through the medium of Pascal s charming French prose. 
When priests of old read Escobar they read him seri 
ously, without omitting the inconvenient bits that rather 
negative the seeming mildness of some of his views. 
Also, they had the seven volumes of his great work, 
Universae Theologiae moralis receptions sententiae, to turn 
to if they felt in any doubt as to his meaning. Two of 
the seven had appeared at Lyons in time for Pascal s 
use, had he wanted to use them. 

Some years ago, a professor at the University of Graz, 
in Austria, Dr. Karl Weiss, became so puzzled by the 
discrepancies between the Escobar of legend and the 
Escobar whom a little study of the man s own works 
revealed to him, that he gallantly decided on a thorough 
investigation. His book appeared in 191 1, a volume of 

1 Pascal, English tr., London, 1933, p. 120. In this Catholic book published 
by a London Catholic firm we find reference (p. 118) to a certain, unstated 
true principle of which probabilism is the distortion? (italics mine) . Curious, 
to say the least of it, as the great majority of moral text-books used in seminaries 
to-day are based on this same distortion of the true principle, whatever it is. 
On p. 14 we are told about all the people who pay homage to Pascal to-day 
not excepting the Jesuits, whom he had used somewhat ill (italics mine again) . 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 109 

334 large octavo pages with the title: Antonio de Escobar 
y Mendoza as a Moral Theologian in Pascal s illumination 
and in the light of truth. 1 The method of this book is the 
only truly scholarly one of giving the texts in full and 
letting the reader judge for himself. Writers favourable 
to Pascal, Strowski, for instance, have been willing to 
admit that he misjudged Escobar s intentions: Si Ton 
lit Escobar, comme V a fait Pascal et a la suite de Pascal 
beaucoup d autres, on y trouvera, je 1 ai dit, les maximes 
singulieres qui indignent Pascal: mais elles neparaitront 
point dictees par un esprit d indulgence a 1 egard du 
peche. Elles ne semblent pas voulues, ni amenees a 
dessein; elles paraissent imposees par la deduction et la 
methode, et, parfois, acceptees a contre-coeur. L exces 
dont elles sont le chatiment, c est 1 exces de 1 esprit 
juridique, non Tabus de 1 esprit d indulgence. . . . 
Escobar n est pas un psychologue, n est pas un mora- 
liste, n est pas un theologien: c est un juriste. 2 This line 
of argument, which Chevalier also adopts, copying it 
from Strowski, amounts more or less to saying: Don t 
be too hard on the poor fellow; he was only a lawyer 
and knew no better. 3 I am sure Escobar would have 
been very grateful to the kind gentlemen, but, in fact, 
he does not stand in the least need of such an apology. 
Dr. Weiss makes it perfectly plain that he was a great 
and profound theologian, a conclusion which anybody 
who takes the trouble to read a few pages of the magni 
ficently produced folios of his large work on moral 
theology will easily reach for himself. The learning 
alone embodied in them ought to have preserved him 
from the derision of learned men. But alas, they do not 

1 P. Antonio de Escobar y Mendoza als Moraltheologe in Pascals Beleuchtung and 
im Lichte der Wahrheit, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911. 

2 Pascal et son temps, t. iii, pp. 1 15-16. 

i io Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

read him. They choose to go by Pascal. For myself, 
I declare that I prefer him in the treatise De Justitia et 
Jure to both de Lugo and Lessius. 1 In twenty-seven 
finely argued chapters, Dr. Weiss discusses all Pascal s 
charges against him, confronts each charge with an 
array of texts which overwhelm it, and shows as plainly 
as man can show that Pascal not only misjudged Esco 
bar s intentions but allowed his passion to blind him to 
Escobar s very meaning. True, the actual words which 
he cites from the Liber theologiae moralis are certainly in 
that book, but there are a great number of other words 
which he does not cite also in that book, and frequently 
they put a very different construction on Escobar s 
thought from that which Pascal tries to make it bear. 

Dr. Robertson, in his book, refers us to Escobar with 
a very wide gesture: In the cases where I have quoted 
Jesuit opinions from Jansenist sources it will be found 
that I have not allowed any Jansenist exaggerations to 
enter. It will be found that the opinion is justly attri 
buted to the Jesuits by referring to the writer con 
cerned, 2 or as a rule to such a writer as Escobar (Aspects, 
p. 109, n. 2) . Well, let us refer to Escobar on the subject 
of bankrupts, which was discussed in the last section. 
The reader may remember the capital which Pascal 
made of the words ne indecore vivat , and how he 
rubbed in Escobar s concession that even a bankrupt 
who had contracted his debts ex injustitia et ex notorio 
delicto might retain what was necessary ne indecore vivat, 
though not as much as a bankrupt who had failed 
through no fault of his own. Immediately before mak 
ing the concession, however, Escobar had said: A man 

1 This treatise has a charming epilogue to it, Ad Deiparentem Dominam 
mearn in which Escobar s love for our Lady is beautifully revealed. 

2 How often did Dr. Robertson refer to the writer concerned? 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases in 

who has become bankrupt is obliged in conscience to 
make restitution if he afterwards arrives at better for 
tune. Hoc certum. Earlier still, he had referred to the 
case when a creditor, through somebody s bankruptcy, 
is going to be reduced to as grave need as the debtor 
himself. What is the debtor s obligation in such a case? 
Escobar s answer is that a debtor, even if in great need, 
is not in the least excused from paying what he owes 
Minime excusatur pressus gravi necessitate debitor. 1 Those 
two sentences ought, by themselves, to have been enough 
to give Pascal pause, or, at any rate, to make him look 
up Lessius. But it was not his job to be just. He would 
have found in Lessius the context of Escobar s thought 
when he wrote, rather abruptly I agree, that even a 
culpable bankrupt could retain some of his property. 
When in 1663 the fifth volume of Escobar s Universae 
theologiae moralis receptiores sententiae appeared at Lyons 
Pascal had been dead nearly a year, so we cannot say 
whether he would have looked at it. Considering what 
little impression the earlier volumes had made upon 
him, it is unlikely. However, that fifth volume is open 
to our inspection and was open to Dr. Robertson s 
inspection. There we find (lib. xxxvii, dub. ciii) the 
following interesting question: When a bankruptcy is 
declared in a public place and accompanied with cer 
tain ignominious ceremonies prescribed by law, is the 
debtor s obligation in conscience to pay in full ex 
tinguished for good? Escobar begins his answer with a 
short summary of what he has already written in volume 
iv on the subject of bankruptcy. Here are his words: 

The immunity of bankruptcy was introduced by the civil 

1 Liber theologiae moralis, tractatus 3, examen ii, cap. 6, n. 20; tractatus 3, 
examen ii, c. 4, n. 13. 

ii2 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

law for the common good, in order that debtors who are 
suited and cast into prison for non-payment may cede and 
make over all their assets juridically, with a view to the 
satisfaction of creditors, as far as is possible. Now, once the 
bankruptcy has been declared, two privileges or advantages 
follow for the bankrupt, first, that he is delivered from prison 
and may not be further molested, and secondly, that if he 
afterwards acquires some property he is not deprived of it 
altogether, but only obliged to compound as far as he con 
veniently can, and a means of subsistence is left to him, 
slender indeed, but fitting (relicta ei parca quidem, sed congrua 
sustentatione) . This holds good in the tribunal of conscience 
also, as it is a privilege conceded by the laws according to 
which the contracts are made. 

At this point Escobar repeats the question with which 
he began. He uses the Sic et Non method of argument 
throughout the whole work, giving first an affirmative 
answer to the various Dubia, and then a negative one, 
after which he winds up with his own opinion. Proceed 
ing thus he first writes that all further obligation in con 
science to pay in full is extinguished wKen the bank 
ruptcy is public and accompanied with ignominious 
ceremonies. This, he says, is the opinion of some writers 
who argue that the ignominy involved extinguishes the 
obligation. Then he gives the negative opinion: 

The obligation to pay in full is not extinguished because 
that ignominy does not destroy the natural duty of paying 
one s debts. Rather is it a punishment for the presumed fault 
of the debtor in contracting them beyond his power to pay, 
and a deterrent to others, lest by extravagance and negli 
gence they come to the same state. 

Assuredly, this is by all means the view to be held, as 
inforo externo the other one is admitted by nobody. 

Next, in Dubium CIV, Escobar asks whether a man 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 113 

who has become bankrupt may lawfully conceal some 
of the assets which he possessed before the bankruptcy 
with a view to living according to his state . The dis 
cussion, in the same form as before, is as follows: 

He can do so lawfully because this is to be plainly gathered 
from the civil laws. So speak Lessius and others afterwards 
to be cited. 

He cannot do so lawfully, because there is no foundation 
in the laws for the assertion that he can. The laws speak only 
of property acquired subsequently to the man s failure, from 
which he can retain as much as will suffice to maintain him 
frugally (parce quidem) according to his condition. So de Lugo. 

I know that theologians commonly say that a man can 
retain a sufficient amount of the assets which he possessed 
before his bankruptcy to enable him to live modestly (tenuiter) 
according to his state. So Silvestro, Navarrus, Bonacina 
[none of them Jesuits]. Bonacina cites Rebellus [a Spanish 
Jesuit], but that man seems to be speaking only of property 
acquired after the bankruptcy, though he does not explain 
himself with enough detail. All of them are speaking of a 
debtor who becomes bankrupt through no fault of his own, 
not of a culpable one, so Diana has no justification for saying 
that their concession applies also to a debtor who has become 
such through notorious crime. For this view of his he cites 
Lessius, but erroneously, for Lessius speaks only of property 
acquired after the bankruptcy. 

I would say, then, about this matter, that from the nature 
of the case in the tribunal of conscience, a debtor can retain 
what is necessary for his frugal support (necessaria ad se parce 
sustentandum) from property owned by him before his failure, 
when, without that amount, he would be reduced to grave need [Italics 
added]. Notice, however, that, if a debtor ex contractu con 
ceals and retains assets in this way, he cannot in conscience 
use the privileges granted by law to bankrupts, for the law 
declares him bankrupt on condition that he delivers up all 
his present assets in payment of his debts. But a man who 

ii4 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

retains some of his property, ad alimenta necessaria, does not 
make a genuine cession of his goods, and it is for such a 
genuine cession that the privileges are granted. Accordingly, 
from property acquired subsequently to his failure, he will 
not be able to retain as much, perhaps, as he might otherwise 
have done, because the privilege by which he is not obliged 
to pay his debts from that subsequently acquired property, 
except in so far as he conveniently can, is granted only after 
a true cession of his goods, and when they have all been 
surrendered. He can, however, conscientiously retain as 
much as is necessary to keep him from suffering extreme or 
grave need. This is conceded to him, not by the privilege 
of human law, but by the law of nature. 1 

Dr. Robertson sent us to Escobar and that is what we 
find. Now let us hear him on the subject of a debtor 
ex delicto: 

A man who is in debt through criminal folly being the 
culpable cause of the whole consequent loss, even though it 
may have happened by chance, is obliged to make restitu 
tion in full. ... If through grave or extreme need he cannot 
and is not obliged to do so immediately, he will have to make 
up all his creditor s losses afterwards, as they are the result 
of his crime in the first place. 2 

And not only is he obliged to restore the full amount of 
the creditor s losses, continues Escobar, but also to re 
coup him for any damage he may have suffered through 
delay in payment. As we should say nowadays, he 
would be obliged in conscience to pay back not only the 
amount of the debt but interest at current rates on that 
amount. And it is to be remembered that this is Esco 
bar s ruling for a man who had acquired his fortune 
lawfully, though he lost it through a crime. Does not 

1 R. P. Antonii de Escobar et Mendoza, Universae theologiae moralis receptiores 
absque lite sententiae, vol. v, pars prima, Lugduni 1663, pp. 86-7. 

2 L.c., p. 84. 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 115 

the evidence as thus fairly presented take a little of the 
shine from Pascal s elegant sarcasm? Most of the cases 
pilloried by that merciless satirist could be justified in 
the same way by reference to Escobar s own plain- 
spoken text. Considering the amount which he wrote 
it is wonderful how rarely he is wrong. He is subtle, 
indeed, as the passages here quoted from him show, and 
at times he allows a certain high-spirited exuberance to 
run away with his pen. But fundamentally he is as sound 
as a bell, for all the jangling tricks of his traducers. 

What then, it may be objected, about Escobar s justi 
fication of the use of false weights and measures by 
merchants, and how defend his opinion, reported by Dr. 
Robertson from La Tkeologie morale des Jesuites (Aspects, 
p. 107), that they could afterwards deny on oath 
before a judge having done so? First, the economic 
situation of the period has to be taken into account. 
Owing to the different currencies circulating in the same 
country prices tended to fluctuate violently. The civil 
authority might, for reasons of its own, fix, let us say, 
the price of wheat at a certain amount, while the dealers 
in wheat and the people who purchased it might be 
generally agreed that that legal price was not fair. If the 
merchants sell at the legal price they will be ruined, and 
if they openly disregard the legal price they will find 
themselves in prison. What is to be done? Let us hear 

When two prices prevail, the one fixed by the Prince and 
the other established by the common estimate of the com 
munity, then the price fixed by the Prince must be observed, 
in the same way as must his just decrees. But if, all things 
considered, it is morally certain that the Prince s price is 
unjust and iniquitous, it need not be observed, and the seller 

1 1 6 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

can accordingly take so much from the weight or the measure 
of his goods as will indemnify him. Should there be a doubt, 
though, as to whether the price is just, then it must be pre 
sumed just, in favour of the Prince who has authority to 
command and fix prices. But if all the people, or the majority 
of them, violate the Prince s monetary statute with impunity, 
he knowing or winking at such violation, then his statute 
is not obligatory, because he is considered to assent to its 
violation. I would speak otherwise if transgressors of the 
statute were punished. 1 

There is nothing very lax about that teaching, nor is 
there about Escobar s further opinion that a man 
charged with malpractices of the sort indicated might 
swear he was innocent. He gives short measure to re 
coup himself for the unfairness of the prices fixed by law. 
Public opinion is agreed that the prices are unfair, and 

^ the civil authority connives at the violation of the law. 
No one considers that he is acting unjustly, and he is 
morally certain himself that he is not doing so. How 
ever, by some mischance he is cited before a court on the 
charge of having used false weights and measures in his 
business dealings. The judge asks him whether he had 
used false weights and he answers on oath that he had 

V not, meaning that they were not false in relation to the 
unjust prices which the law forced him to accept. The 
judge in this case, as Escobar states it, is not questioning 
juridically, or ordine juris servato, for which it is required 
that there should be a strong presumption of guilt 
arising out of the proven ill fame of the accused. We are 
not now dealing with English law at the present day 
but with Spanish law in Escobar s time. Suppose, how 
ever, that the judge is questioning juridically, that is to 

1 L.C., pp. 159-60 (lib. 39, sect, i, cap. i, nn. 13-14). 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 117 

say, with a right to be told the truth, how does Escobar 
solve the case? He solves it thus: 

When the judge questions juridically and this is known to 
the accused, he is bound to confess the truth even though it 
should entail capital punishment for him. The reason for 
this is that everybody is obliged to obey a legitimate superior. 
But to conceal the truth in a matter of little consequence, or 
to tell a lie over it, is not a mortal sin, unless accompanied 
by an oath. So too, if the judge asks questions about an 
action that was at least not gravely sinful the accused is not 
obliged to reply according to the mind of the judge but can 
deny having done what he fears will get him into trouble. 
For instance, if Titius kills Caius in reasonable and blame 
less self-defence, he can deny having killed him before the 
judge, because what the judge means by his question is 
whether Titius has murdered Caius, and that Titius has 
not done. 1 

In an earlier part of his work Escobar wrote: It is 
certain that, if a judge questions in this juridical manner 
which obliges the person interrogated to confess the 
truth, such a person will commit a mortal sin if he con 
ceals the truth, using an amphibological oath (vol. iv, 
lib. 29, sect. 2, cap. 17, n. 194), and he goes on to say 
that the same applies if anybody uses an amphibological 
oath to strengthen a contract, because he thus deceives 
his neighbour in a serious matter . Having dealt with 
the cases of persons who employ double-meaning oaths 
in courts or in connexion with contracts, he has the 
following words for other cases: Nobody can doubt that 
to speak and, a fortiori, to swear, without necessity or 
for some permitted cause, in any other sense than that 
understood by the hearers is a sin; for such a mode of 

1 L.c., vol. vii, p. 247. Escobar does not say that a lie is no sin but that it is 
not necessarily a mortal sin. 

1 1 8 Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 

speech is contrary to the relations of men as social and 
political beings. 

Here and there in his book, Dr. Robertson mentions 
Probabilism. It is the doctrine Tor which the Jesuits are 
so notorious and by which they are to be found justify 
ing everything easily 5 . Dr. Robertson plainly thinks, 
and, indeed, says so in as many words, that the Jesuits 
invented the doctrine of Probabilism and that it is and 
has always been something peculiar to their Society. 
But, as anybody with a moderate knowledge of the 
history of theology knows, the first man to expound and 
defend the doctrine explicitly was not a Jesuit at all but 
the great Spanish Dominican theologian, Bartholomew 
Medina, and that from his time to the date of the Lettres 
Proviwiales, one of the most brilliant periods in all 
theological history, Probabilism was taught practically 
x universally and not with least verve and acumen by 
the Doctors of the Sorbonne. The Catholic Church con 
demned the Tutiorism or rigorism for which Pascal and 
the Jansenists stood, just as at the other extreme she 
condemned the laxity of some casuists, including a few 
Jesuits. Probabilism she has never banned, and it is 
to-day, as it was of old, by far the most widely-approved 
system for the guidance of consciences within her fold. 
Before making his foolish remarks about it, Dr. Robert 
son might have tried to understand what it meant. This 
is not the place to enlighten him, but I may cite a 
passage from the derided Escobar on the subject, with 
which to conclude a chapter already too long: When 
there are two opinions, I gladly choose the one which 
rests more firmly on the sense and bearing of the 
particular law and of the whole body of laws, or which 
is more approved by custom and received opinion; . 

Dr. Robertson s Misleading Cases 119 

knowing, however, that against the divine or natural 
law human custom has no force. . . . When a problem 
arises about which opinions are equally divided, as 
regards the number, the testimony, and the authority 
of the doctors who have expressed them, I choose and 
give greater approval to the opinion which is more 
favourable to religion, piety and justice. ... In the 
matter of vows, oaths and testamentary dispositions, 
my approval goes to the opinion which seems to agree 
better with the nature of such actions, and also to that 
which tends more to the protection of orphans, widows, 
strangers from foreign parts, and other persons called 
in law miserabiles. 1 

1 L.C., vol. i, Praeloquium, cap. 23. 


IN support of his contention that it was the Jesuits 
rather than the Puritans who made nascent capitalism 
respectable by giving it religious encouragement, Dr. 
Robertson devotes a long section of his book (pp. 136- 
60) to the controversy about the lawfulness of interest 
on loans which divided Catholic theologians in the six 
teenth century. His sole authority for what he says on the 
subject is an article entitled, Die deutschen Jesuiten im 
5% Streit des 16. Jahrhunderts , which Father Bernhard 
Duhr contributed in 1900 to the Innsbruck periodical, 
Zeitschrift filr katholische Theologie. This article was the 
result of much research in Jesuit archives, but it does not 
cite documents textually, nor, in the nature of the case, 
was it possible for its author to explain very clearly why 
the controversy arose. Dr. Robertson, at a further re 
move from the original texts, is naturally still more vague. 
His discussion hangs suspended in the air, without 
attachments to the historical context of the dispute. 
One feels while reading him as if one was walking in a 
fog out of which loom up all sorts of queer-looking and 
sinister objects, two bishops turning a whole city upside 
down with their yeas and their nays, a lot of squabbling 
Jesuits with funny names, the census realis utrimque 
redimibilis, written just like that without a word of 
explanation, and finally c a famous book which charac 
terized the work of the Jesuits thus: The Jesuits, who 
profess an accommodating theology and try to indulge 
the passions and desires of men as far as they can, have 
worked hard on this matter of usury to find subtleties 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 1 2 1 

and means of palliating and excusing it, in order to grant 
freedom to exercise it without scruple and in security of 
conscience to those who wish to follow their maxims. 
In Dr. Robertson s opinion, this description of the acti 
vities of the Jesuits is not unjust . The Jesuits, then, in 
Dr. Robertson s opinion worked hard to enable people 
to exercise usury without scruple. And what is the 
famous book containing this truth so advantageous 
to the reputation of the Puritans? Of course, dear 
reader, you must know it well, as it is famous, and I need 
only mention its title, La Morale des Jesuites (1667), for 
you to know that you know. 1 

Now, let us see the Jesuits busily working to enable 
people to exercise usury without scruple. But first of all 
what is usury? It is and was and ever will be a sin com 
mitted in connexion with the bilateral contract of loan 
or mutuum. In the canon and civil law that contract con 
sisted of a transaction whereby one party transferred to 
another some thing of his, consumable by use, some 
thing, in other words, sterile and unproductive, with 
the obligation on the borrower s side to return to him 
another thing of the same kind, exactly equal in amount 
and value. Goods thus transferred were called Tun- 
gibles because their place could be supplied by other 
goods of the same kind, or, as we might say, other goods 
could function for them. A loaf of bread is a simple 

1 One could wish that the Jansenists had been more inventive with their titles, 
seeing how inventive they were in other directions. It is easy to get this last- 
mentioned book confused with La Theologie morale des Jesuites (1659) and La 
Morale pratique des Jesuites (1669-95). As already indicated, La Morale des 
Jesuites was compiled by the Jansenist Nicholas Perrault. Like the Morale 
Pratique it was printed and published by the Elzevir firm in Amsterdam, though 
both books have a different inscription on their title-pages. Goldsmid, Biblio- 
theca Curiosa: a complete Catalogue of all the publications of the Elzevir Presses, 
vol. i (Edinburgh, 1888), pp. 146-7. 

122 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

example of a fungible commodity. It does not breed 
other loaves of bread as a cow breeds other cows, nor 
sprout rolls as a vine sprouts grapes. It is sterile, and to 
use it is to consume it. If, then, I lend you a loaf and re 
quire back two loaves of the same size, I am charging 
you twice, for the use of the loaf and for the loaf itself, 
though those two things are really only one thing. I am 
a usurer. Usury consisted and consists in precisely that, 
to loan some unfruitful thing and to require, not only 
the return of a similar thing, but payment for the loan, 
considered purely as a loan. It is a breach of contract, 
and so, unjust and sinful. 

Among fungible goods, the canon and civil law long 
considered money to have its rightful place. Certainly, 
in the old times money did not breed money, and most 
people will agree that, at least until the close of the 
Middle Ages, it could rightly be considered unproduc 
tive. It is true that in some restricted areas it had 
already by then acquired a quasi-fecundity owing to 
trade developments, but, generally speaking, it was 
sterile, as there was hardly any scope for investing it in 
our modern way. A man kept it in a stocking or in the 
vaults of some obliging monastery, and, from time to 
time, took out what he needed to pay a debt, buy food, 
or lend a friend. If he demanded anything of his friend 
over and above the return of the sum lent, and that 
purely in consideration of the loan, he committed usury. 
At the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Council 
of Vienne declared that any one who should dare to 
affirm the lawfulness of usury was to be punished as a 

While, however, insisting with great emphasis on the 
sinfulness of usury, the Church and her theologians did 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 123 

not teach that compensation for the advancement of 
money was always unlawful. There might be just titles 
to such compensation, extrinsic to the contract of the 
loan, but arising on occasion of it. Thus, if a man asked 
me, in the long past, to lend him i oo, and I was really 
and truly and without pretence going to spend that sum 
on the sowing of a crop of wheat, which I could be sure 
would yield me a return of at least 5 per cent., or on 
repairing a building, which, if left longer, must involve 
me in 5 per cent, extra expense, then I could quite justly 
require the borrower to pay me back, not a hundred, 
but a hundred and five pounds. The two titles arising 
here on occasion of the loan were called technically 
lucrum cessans and damnum emergens, and, after a brief 
period of discussion and hesitation, nearly everybody, 
from Pope to peasant, recognized their validity. 

It was easy enough to determine whether these and 
other good titles 1 had a place in the loan contracts of 
medieval Europe, but, with the tremendous develop 
ments of commerce consequent on the discovery of new 
trade routes by sea, the old, simple tests became more 
difficult to apply. Money took on yearly more and more 
of the lineaments of productive capital, though not for 
centuries would it develop into the monster of fecundity 
which nearly throttled its Frankenstein in 1932, and 
thus, while the merchants, in their eagerness to get rich 
quick, endeavoured by Procrustean methods to make 
the ancient tides cover every sort of new and shady 
transaction, the theologians, on their side, became more 
and more perplexed over the increasingly complicated 

1 Such as the poena convmtionalis, a fine, agreed on in the contract, to be 
imposed for delay in the return of the sum lent, and the periculum sortis, meaning 
the danger to the capital, which could be very real and for which some com 
pensation was reasonable. 

1 24 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

problems of commercial justice. The following para 
graph, written by the Jesuit, Laynez, about 1554, gives 
some idea of the state of affairs: 

As it is supremely necessary to avoid cheating one s neigh 
bour in business or acting towards him unjustly, so is it 
extremely difficult to detect when such deception or injustice 
has place in commercial transactions. On the one hand, 
neither Scripture nor the ancient Fathers and philosophers 
deal with the matter in detail, and, on the other, the astute 
ness of the merchants, fostered by their lust for gain, has 
discovered so many tricks and dodges that it is hardly 
possible to see the plain facts, much less to pronounce judge 
ment on them. This is the reason why modern writers, 
whether theologians or jurists, are so confused and at variance 
with one another. 

Finally, the matter, being a question of morals, only 
admits of a certain probability, because its nature is such 
that the least change of circumstances renders it necessary to 
revise one s judgement of the whole affair. Consequently, 
to decide such variable questions exactly one would need 
to be an Argus with a hundred eyes. As St. Basil says very 
well: To understand justice is, in truth, the part of a great 
intellect and of a very perfect mind. 1 

In some parts of Europe,, ever since the fifteenth 
century, long before the foundation of the Society of 
Jesus, a business arrangement by which the investor 
could obtain 5 per cent, for his money had become 
prevalent and popular. It was so widespread in Ger 
many that it obtained throughout Europe the name of 
the Contractus Germanicus. The person in this contract 
on whom the theologians fastened suspicious eyes was 
a sort of sleeping partner or debenture holder who drew 
a steady 5 per cent, from his investment, without in 
dustry on his part or danger of losing his capital. This 

1 Grisar, jfacobi Lainez disputationes Tridentinae, vol. ii, p. 228. 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 125 

happy arrangement was secured in the following way. 
The investor, when making the contract of partnership 
which everybody considered perfectly legitimate, also 
entered into, or was supposed to enter into, two other 
contracts, one of insurance against the loss of his capital, 
for which he had to pay by agreeing to accept a per 
centage of the total profits less than he would have 
otherwise obtained, and a second, also of insurance, by 
which he agreed to accept a still lower but guaranteed 
percentage or rate of interest on the profits. All theolo 
gians admitted that these contracts, if made with three 
separate persons, would be quite just and untainted 
with usury, but numbers of them doubted whether, if 
made with one and the same person, they could be 
pronounced innocent. And certainly at first sight there 
was a case against the Triple Contract, as the combina 
tion of the three came to be called. It seemed like pure 
usury, that is to say, drawing profit without labour, loss, 
or risk from the loan of a fungible commodity. But its 
defenders denied that it entailed no loss. They argued 
that the title, lucrum cessans, was involved, and un 
doubtedly they had the rights of the argument if the 
lender or investor was in a position to use his money with 
profit in other and legitimate ways. 

Of course, it is open to any one to say that the titles 
to interest recognized by Catholic theologians were all 
moonshine, and only invented to allow usury under 
other names. Dr. Robertson does say as much. He in 
forms us (Aspects, p. 135) that the prohibition of usury 
had broken down in practice at the beginning of the 
sixteenth century amongst Catholics and continued 
during the course of the century to become more and 
more unreal 3 . It would take much too long to argue the 

126 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

point, so I can but refer the reader, if he cares enough, 
to the latest treatise on the subject, August Knoll s Der 
%ins in der Scholastik (Innsbruck, 1933), where he will 
find it abundantly proved that Dr. Robertson s ideas 
are wrong. The principal early defender of the legiti 
macy of the Contractus Germanicus was the famous (really 
famous) theologian, Johann Eck. First from his pro 
fessor s chair in the University of Ingolstadt and then 
in a series of printed theses he maintained with great 
vigour and acumen that the Contract was perfectly free 
from usury. His theses , writes Dr. Robertson, were 
peddled with varying success round the Universities of 
Ingolstadt, Bologna, Vienna and Mainz. The peddling 
is a matter of opinion, but the varying success is true, as, 
though Ingolstadt University declared for Eck s view, 
its Chancellor, the Bishop of Eichstatt, forbade the 
debates, moved probably by an unfavourable report 
from the canonists in Mainz. 

But Eck was not to be crushed so easily. Encouraged 
by the Papal Nuncio, Campeggio, among others, he went 
to Bologna, the great University of law, in 1515, and 
there, on July 12, debated his thesis with great success. 
His humanist enemies in Germany spread a story in 
their Epistolae obscurorum virorum that he had explicitly 
defended usury, but his own words remain to prove 
them libellers. After his good reception at Bologna, he 
applied to Paris for a pronouncement on the Triple 
Contract argument by which he justified the Contractus 
Germanicus, and received word that the Sorbonne s fore 
most theologian, John Major, agreed with him as to its 
lawfulness. 1 

1 Zech, Rigor moderatus Doctrinae Pontificae circa usuras. In Migne, Theologiae 
cursus completus, vol. xvi (Paris, 1859), cols. 932-3. 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 127 

Then, with Luther, came the deluge, and Eck had to 
attend to more important matters than the ethics of 
partnership. By the year 1549, when the first Jesuits 
arrived to settle in Germany, Luther, Eck, and all the 
other early valiants of the Reformation struggle had 
disappeared from the scene. A decade later, St. Peter 
Canisius, the first German Jesuit and first provincial 
superior of his brethren in the country, was appointed 
by Cardinal Otto Truchsess to the post of Cathedral 
preacher in Augsburg, the greatest centre of banking 
and exchange in the Emperor s dominions. St. Peter 
was not long in discovering that the merchants and 
bankers of the City possessed elastic consciences, and he 
was not slow to tell them so. In a sermon preached on 
the feast of St. Matthew, September 21, 1560, he said: 

Have we not many Matthews in Augsburg? They sit not 
only in the custom-house but in the town-hall and in the 
business offices. The whole earth is full of Matthews and 
publicans and usurers and those who grind the faces of the 
poor with various practices. Are not they Matthews who in 
all their dealing seek only gain, oppressing their neighbour 
in buying and selling, in lending money and . . . taking six 
or ten per cent, on it a year . . ., even though the poor man 
suffers. ... And now come the new preachers to increase 
the licence, so that merchants sin without any conscience, so 
that nobody makes restitution and whole families are on the 
way to damnation, owing to the unjust riches acquired through 
usury. 1 

In the letters of Canisius to Laynez at this time there 
are frequent appeals for advice. Being a saint does not 
necessarily make a man clear-eyed on all practical 
problems, and Canisius, in certain respects, tended to 

1 Braunsberger, BeatiP. Canisii epistulae, vol. ii (1898), p. 855. 

128 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

be over-scrupulous in his regard for the letter of the law. 
On the usury question, his profound sympathy with 
poor men served to reinforce his misgivings and to 
render him somewhat blind to the changed conditions 
of social life. The consequence was that he remained 
an obstinate medievalist on the subject of taking interest 
for loans. In other words, he failed to appreciate what 
was certainly a fact, that in his time the old titles could 
justly be made to cover and legitimize transactions 
formerly usurious. Looking back from our superior 
vantage-point, it is easy for us to be scornful of the old 
controversies; to regard some Jesuits as fools because 
they failed to understand that their world had changed 
and other Jesuits as unprincipled because they allowed 
for the new circumstances. 

Besides his difficulties with regard to the Contmctus 
Germanicus, which he never succeeded in putting to rest, 
St. Peter Canisius had others on the subject of census 
or rent-charges customary in Germany. These rent- 
charges were annuities of two main kinds, real and 
personal. A real rent-charge, what the French call a 
rente-fonciere, meant the right to an annual pension, 
based on the alienation of some fructifying property, 
such as lands or flocks, by the annuitant to another. 
The personal rent-charge was so called because founded, 
not immediately on the goods, but on the industry, 
office, credit of the person to whom the property or sum 
of money had been made over. On being questioned, 
Laynez, the General of the Society of Jesus at this time, 
informed Canisius that the rent-charges were lawful 
provided a true sale took place, that is, provided the 
alienation of the property was absolute. Father Elderen, 
the companion of Canisius in Augsburg, also asked for 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 129 

advice on the same subject, and had the following reply 
from Laynez on December 29, 1562: 

If the annuity be not a true purchase (emptid) but covert 
usury, one ought further to consider whether the owner of 
the capital is willing but unable to get it back from him to 
whom it is loaned. For then, by reason of the title, damnum 
emergens, or also by that of lucrum cessans if the lender is able 
and ready to lay out his money in some other useful way, 
it is legitimate for him to receive some interest. Further, it 
will not be usury to require some interest by reason of the 
poena conventionalis in the contract, or by reason of any other 
of the titles which Father Nadal has set forth. Finally, by 
whatever means it can be done, let not the penitents be 
reduced to despair nor alienated from Confession. In this 
matter one should not use the severest opinions, but those 
commonly held by theologians. 1 

Dr. Robertson cites the last two sentences of the fore 
going letter as a pendant to the following remarks: The 
first thing which is apparent is that the hands of the 
Jesuits were more or less forced by the pretentions of 
their charges. The Jesuits were determined to retain their 
influence over the laity and could not afford to strain the allegiance 
of their followers too far (Aspects, p. 137. Italics inserted). 
Now, anybody reading the passage given above from 
Laynez s letter with a little care will observe that he 
twice over alludes to the frame of mind of the person 
receiving the annuity. If there was no real sale and 
consequently no properly constituted rent-charge, the 
mind of the annuitant had to be explored. Was he in 
sober truth willing to recall his money, laid out usuri- 
ously, and was he able to get it back? If he seriously 
wanted to recall it so as to invest it in some legitimate 
way, but could not, as a matter of hard fact, get it out 

1 Braunsberger, I.e., vol. iii, p. 585. 

130 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

of the borrower s hands, then he plainly had a good 
title, ex lucro cessante, to indemnification. In other words, 
the validity of the titles depended in the last resort on 
the bona fides of the contracting parties. However 
plausible they might make things look on paper, if, in 
fact, their own minds and wills did not endorse their 
words, then, for all their trouble, they were usurers 
before God and guilty of mortal sin. How the investiga 
tion of a delicate problem of conscience such as this 
proves Jesuit determination to retain influence over the 
laity, I completely fail to see. Underlying Dr. Robert 
son s words is the chivalrous suggestion that the Jesuits 
were not beyond letting their principles go by the board, 
in case the laity pressed them too hard. He talks airily 
about the Jesuits in general, whereas there were only 
two concerned, and one of the two is a canonized Saint. 
Moreover, St. Peter Canisius and his companion, Father 
William Elderen, waged such ceaseless war against 
every form of commercial malpractice that they were 
both subjected to heavy persecution and eventually 
compelled to abandon their work in Augsburg. 

Laynez, in his letter, referred to some notes of Nadal, 
who, after the General himself, was the most important 
and influential man in the whole Society of Jesus. In 
1562, Nadal, the representative in Rome of the German 
Jesuits, drew up a set of rules for the guidance of the 
Fathers at Ingolstadt and Augsburg. The following is 
an excerpt from this document: 

In the usury cases which happen commonly in Augsburg, 
for instance when Socrates gives Plato money and, his capital 
remaining intact, receives annually 5 or 6 per cent., clearly 
the answer must be that the transaction is against the divine 
and natural law, nor can any dispensation be looked for with 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 131 

regard to it. But it is lawful to receive the same gain, either 
if it is genuinely given as a present, without deceit or fraud, 
or on account of damnum emergens or lucrum cessans, provided 
that damage really does ensue for Socrates or that he does 
really cease to make profit, if Plato has his money. The 
poena conventionalis is reducible to this latter title, namely 
when Socrates lends Plato his money, stipulating that he 
must pay a certain sum over and above if it is not returned 
within the agreed time. The sign that this convention is not 
a usurer s fraud will be if Socrates is more anxious to have 
his money returned at the end of the agreed time, without 
a fine added or any gain, rather than later with a fine. 1 

As to whether the Jesuits professed e an accommo 
dating theology or allowed their hands to be forced by 
the pretentions of their charges , we have some news 
from Augsburg, dated June 1564. The canons of the 
Cathedral chapter there drew up a long list of com 
plaints against St. Peter Canisius and his brethren, 
among which were the specific charges that they showed 
themselves too stern in the confessional and refused to 
absolve those whom they judged to be usurers. St. Peter 
made his defence in a long document, of which the 
following is an excerpt: 

With regard to the usurers, of whom, alas, there are too 
many cases in Augsburg, the Jesuit Fathers know what is in 
accordance with divine and human law in this matter, and 
also what modern doctors and canonists think. They go by 
the prescriptions of these authorities, lest, acting otherwise, 
they damn their own souls and the souls of others. . . . They 
consider to be usurious the custom now everywhere common 
among the people of taking 5 per cent, for money loaned, the 

1 Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu. Epistolae P. Hieronymi Nadal, vol. iv 
(Madrid 1905), p. 247. The sixty-two volumes of the Monumenta Historica 
published so far (Madrid-Rome, 1903-32) contain the true Morale pratique 
des Jesuites. 

132 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

capital remaining the creditor s property and returnable to 
him at choice. 

It is not possible to excuse this custom in conscience, 
because formal and real usury is here plainly committed and 
the divine precept violated, Mutuum date, nihil inde sperantes. 
This is so, no matter what certain jurists oppose, who, argu 
ing according to the prudence of this world, think that many 
things of this kind are to be winked at, against the common 
and received doctrine of both ancient and modern theologians 
and canonists. 1 

So, rightly or wrongly, did St. Peter Canisius declare 
himself, and he was for fourteen years the provincial 
superior of his brethren in Upper Germany. Neither 
Laynez nor Nadal had been able to tell him definitely 
that the Contractus Germanicus was lawful, and he and 
most of his brethren accordingly regarded it with the 
deepest suspicion, even though it was expressly allowed 
in Augsburg by a decree of the Senate. When St. Francis 
Borgia succeeded Laynez as General of the Society of 
Jesus, he, too, received anxious appeals from Germany 
on the subject of the Contract. It was causing the Jesuit 
confessors there infinite difficulty from the simple fact 
that they were not willing to have their hands forced by 
their charges. The first sign of any change in their atti 
tude appeared in 1567, when Pope St. Pius V, on being 
asked by Borgia, declared as a private theologian, that 
he thought 5 per cent., derived from the combined con 
tracts of partnership and insurance, that is to say, from 
the Triple Contract, might lawfully be taken, at least 
in the case of minors and other such persons who could 
not themselves traffic with their money. 2 On receipt of 
this news, Canisius gratefully recorded the comfort that 

1 Braunsberger, I.e., vol. iv, p. 563. 

2 Braunsberger, I.e., vol. v, pp. 486-7, 529. 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 133 

it gave his men, but, at the same time, called the Gene 
ral s attention to other elements of the problem which 
had not yet been clearly defined. The reason for that 
was a curious hesitation in the Pope s own mind about 
the whole affair. He inclined to think that the Triple 
Contract was lawful, but, fearful of the consequences of 
openly sanctioning it, made reservations which had the 
effect of further obscuring the issues. One thing is quite 
plain, that the German Jesuits never dreamt of acting on 
their own responsibility, but were scrupulous to apply 
to Rome whenever a point seemed to need explanation. 
In I56Q 1 Pope Pius issued the Bull, Cum Onus, on the 
subject of rent-charges, a rigorous piece of legislation 
forbidding certain developments in the theory of rents 
which assimilated them to the Triple Contract. The 
Bull, in Dr. Robertson s opinion, was a challenge to 
the Jesuits and they accepted it boldly (Aspects, p. 153) . 
For any evidence to that effect, though, he has to jump 
four years, and then all that he can give us is a snippet 
out of Father Duhr, recording the verdict of some 
Roman Jesuits in 1573, that where the legislation of 
Pius V was not in force it did not bind. And neither did 
it, as any tiro in canon law could have told him. He 
allows us to think that the developments in the theory 
of rent-charges were due to the innovating activities of 
the Jesuits when, as a matter of fact, theologians such as 
Gabriel Biel and John Major had discussed and de 
fended them before the Society of Jesus came into exist 
ence. Again, he mentions a certain Father Martin , 
whom he found in Duhr s article, as preaching against 
the lawfulness of the 5 per cent. Contract, and appears 
to deduce from that and two other completely irrelevant 

1 Not 1559 as in Aspects, p. 153, and Index, sub verb. Bulls . 

134 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

facts the somewhat remarkable conclusion that the 
Jesuits had become terribly lax. At any rate, immedi 
ately after recording the three facts he continues: And 
so matters went on. By 1571 the laxity of the German 
Jesuits was so pronounced that the Austrian Provincial 
complained of its spread into Austria (Aspects, p. 138). 
Had he but known that Father Martin Gewarts was 
the most celebrated preacher the German Jesuits pos 
sessed, and that his influence in Munich, the seat of the 
Bavarian Court, was very great, he might have reckoned 
a sermon of his against the lawfulness of the universally 
practised contract evidence of obscurantism, or rigor 
ism, or anything else he liked, but not surely of laxity. 
As for the Austrian Jesuits and their complaint, the 
explanation is perfectly simple. After Pope Pius V had 
expressed his mind in a sense at least partially favour 
able to the Contractus Germanicus, and before the publica 
tion of the Bull, Cum Onus, some of the German Jesuits 
went as far as His Holiness had done but not one step 
farther. In Austria, on the other hand, the 5 per cent. 
Contract was almost unknown, owing to different eco 
nomic circumstances, and had no such sanction in the 
country s laws as it enjoyed in Germany. The Austrian 
Jesuits accordingly declared against it when the ques 
tion came up, but only for fear of giving scandal by any 
other decision, and not on theological grounds. In any 
case, as Dr. Robertson must have seen in Duhr s article, 
the Austrian Fathers misunderstood the point at issue, 
thinking it to have been settled in Rome that 5 per cent, 
could be taken on the capital of minors, widows, and 
such people, without reference to any title extrinsic to 
the mere loan. But, of course, as already shown, that 
was not so at all. The 5 per cent, was permitted only if 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 135 

taken according to the terms of the Triple Contract, 
which itself depended for its lawfulness on the titles of 
damnum emergens and lucrum cessans. 

The unreality of Dr. Robertson s treatment of this 
question becomes apparent when he refers to the Jesuit 
commission set up in Rome in 1573 to discuss the 5 per 
cent. Contract. Of the fourteen decisions at which the 
Fathers arrived he dismisses all save one as not par 
ticularly interesting . Now, why are they not particu 
larly interesting? Can the reason be that, instead of 
affording support to Dr. Robertson s thesis of Jesuit 
laxity, they go dead against it, condemning usury, and 
anything bearing the semblance of usury, in the plainest 
terms? 1 The single decision on which he fastens for 
comment runs as follows: As often as two or three doc 
tors are of the same opinion on matters pertaining to 
moral theology and cases of conscience, the confessor 
can follow their view when the common opinion of doc 
tors does not gainsay it. 2 In his footnote reference to 
Duhr s article for this decision, which is paraphrased 
there accurately enough, Dr. Robertson writes as fol 
lows: This is certainly one of the earliest enunciations 
of the doctrine of probabilism. He plainly feels that he 
has made a discovery, for in his text he says : This might 
prove to be one of the beginnings of the doctrine of 
"probabilism" for which the Jesuits are so notorious. It 
is not impossible that the adoption and development of 
this doctrine might be traced to the efforts of the Jesuits 
to keep up to date in their economic casuistry. Now, 

1 The decisions are given in their Latin original in Braunsberger, I.e., 
vol. vii, pp. 672-4. 

2 Quotiescumque duo vel tres doctores idem sentiunt in rebus moralibus et 
conscientiae casibus, potest confessarius illos sequi quando non reclamat com- 
munis sententia doctorum. Braunsberger, I.e., p. 674. 

136 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

as we are indulging in mights , let us say that the deci 
sion of the Jesuits might be shown to be something quite 
different from probabilism. There are four different 
drafts of the decision. In one of them it first ran as 
follows: As often as two or three doctors are of the same 
opinion in matters pertaining to moral theology and 
cases of conscience, the confessor can follow their view, 
even if he himself and other doctors think the contrary? If that 
last concessive clause had been allowed to stand, Dr. 
Robertson would have a good case, but it was crossed 
outj and the words when the common opinion of doc 
tors does not gainsay it substituted. As thus stated the 
doctrine taught is not probabilism at all but something 
more like tutiorism, or, at any rate, probabiliorism, for, 
ambiguous though it is, it seems to imply that the com 
mon opinion must be followed irrespective of the proba 
bility of other opinions. The confessor cannot follow the 
opinion of two or three doctors, or, as in another draft of 
the decision, that of four or five doctors, when the com 
mon opinion is against it. The probability of an opinion, 
it should be said, does not depend on a counting of 
heads, for or against it. It is to be deduced primarily 
from internal reasons and by speculative argument. The 
intrinsic soundness of those reasons and the cogency of 
the argument are what constitute a doctor s authority 
in the matter. The opinion of one single doctor, such as 
St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus Liguori, might be held 
as probable on the ground of their authority, whereas 
the common opinion of ten other doctors, or twenty 
or a hundred, might not be probable, because they 
merely copied one another and the initial reasoning 
was weak. 

It is not impossible , says Dr. Robertson, that the 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 137 

adoption and development of this doctrine [probabilism] 
might be traced to the efforts of the Jesuits to keep up 
to date in their economic casuistry. Unfortunately, the 
great school of Dominican theologians at Salamanca 
got in first. We find, for instance, the illustrious founder 
of the school, Vitoria, writing in 1539, before the Society 
of Jesus was founded, that if an educated man con 
siders two opinions to be probable, then, no matter 
which of the two he follows, he does not sin . Vitoria s 
pupil, the famous Melchior Cano, who, incidentally, 
was no lover of the Society of Jesus, underlined that doc 
trine about 1 548 and added that a confessor would often 
be justified in following a probable opinion even if it 
was contrary to what he himself believed. The Jesuits 
of 1573, as we have seen, hesitated on this point and 
eventually crossed out Cano s concession. Dominic 
Soto, one of the most learned and authoritative Domini 
can commentators on St. Thomas, expressed himself in 
the same terms as Vitoria, in his De Justitia etjure, pub 
lished in 1556, and, to make a long story short, Bartholo 
mew de Medina, the head of the Dominican school at 
Salamanca in 1573, taught explicitly that if an opinion 
is probable, it is lawful to follow it, even though the opposite 
opinion be more probable 9 . 1 That scrap of history is enough 
by itself to dispose of Dr. Robertson s suggestion, but 

1 Medina s lectures were published in 1577 under the title, Expositions in 
Sanctum Thomam, and there, Prima Secundae, quaest. 10, art. 6, we find the defini 
tive expression of probabilism: Si est opinio probabilis, licitum est earn sequi, 
licet opposita probabilior sit. His proof of this proposition is exactly what any 
probabilist of to-day would put forward: An opinion is said to be probable 
not because apparent reasons are adduced in its favour and because it has 
assertors and defenders, for by that argument all errors would be probable. 
Rather is that a probable opinion which wise men put forward and confirm 
with excellent arguments. It would imply a contradiction, he maintains, if 
we could not lawfully follow an opinion probable in this sense, even as against 
another speculatively more probable. 

138 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

much more could be said. The probabilism whose 
adoption and development he would trace to the efforts 
of the German Jesuits to keep up to date in their eco 
nomic casuistry was taught explicitly at the beginning of 
the seventeenth century by the most eminent among the 
Jesuits traditional foes, the Doctors of the Sorbonne I 1 
Moreover, the Jesuits greatest theological antagonist in 
Spain shortly before, the Dominican Banes, was in his 
moral theology a probabilist. 

In March 1575 the Bishop of Augsburg, Johann 
Egolph von Knoringen, moved principally by the repre 
sentations of his friend Jasper Haywood, an English 
Jesuit professing at Ingolstadt, issued an ordinance for 
bidding the priests of his diocese, under pain of suspen 
sion, to absolve those who put their money out to interest 
according to the Contractus Germanicus. At the same time 
he declared that those who defended the Contract in 
writing would incur excommunication, reserved to him 
self. Father Paul Hoffaeus, a man of austere life but 
difficult temper, had by this time succeeded St. Peter 
Ganisius as Provincial of the German Jesuits. He was 
very angry with Haywood for what he had done, because, 
according to his version, the Bishop, through Haywood s 
advice, was put in the humiliating position of having 
to withdraw his orders, so much clamour did they raise. 
Now, from the many letters of Hoffaeus published by 
Braunsberger it is easy to see that he was given to 
exaggerating and interpreting events according as they 
suited or opposed his own ideas. He certainly seems 
to have exaggerated on the present occasion, because 

1 Extracts from the writings of Gamaches, Isambert, and Duval, all profes 
sors at the Sorbonne, which expound and defend probabilism as clearly as a 
modern Jesuit professor could do it, are given by de Meyer, Les premieres contro- 
verses jansenistes en France, p. 51. 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 139 

everything goes to show that the Bishop did not with 
draw his orders. 1 

A few months later Bishop Egolph died and was suc 
ceeded by Bishop Marquard von Berg, who promptly 
quashed his predecessor s ordinance. On this subject 
we have an interesting letter from Father Theodoric 
Canisius, half-brother of St. Peter and Rector of the 
Jesuit University of Dillingen. It was addressed to the 
General, Father Mercurian, February 12, 1576: 

We daily find our Patron [Bishop Marquard] more diffi 
cult to deal with. He has already withdrawn six hundred 
florins of the University s annual revenue. . . . Just recently, 
some priests of this diocese, formerly our pupils in theology, 
showed themselves unwilling to absolve those who desired 
to use in future that Contractus Germanicus by which 5 per cent, 
is received, with power to recover the capital. Their chief 
reason for refusing was the very serious ordinance which the 
previous Bishop had published and which had been approved 
by leading theologians and jurists, forbidding the absolution 
of such persons. ... So incensed was our patron with these 
priests that he gave orders for their imprisonment and said 
that, if they remained wedded to their opinion, he would 
deprive them of their pastoral office. The same was to apply 
to all who should in future deny absolution in such circum 
stances. He also suspended Father Jasper Haywood from 
his office of lecturer, because he had enlarged on the question 
in class, when dealing with the subject of usury, and threatened 
the rest of us with prison if we should dissuade priests subject 
to him from giving absolution in such cases. 

On one occasion when I was present, our Patron denied 
that the Contractus Germanicus was against the divine law, for 
if it had been, he said, he would not permit confessors to 
absolve those who employed it. But those people themselves 
recognize and confess that it is a mere contract of loan, nor 

1 Zech in his Rigor Moderatus gives the true account of the affair, from the 
original documents. In Migne, Theologiae Cursus Completes, vol. xvi, cols. 9734. 

140 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

can learned theologians and jurists, who are often asked 
about the matter, find in it another legitimate contract. At 
last we have brought about that Father Jasper should not 
be stopped from lecturing at present. I have been informed 
by various learned men that they had more than once heard 
recently from our Patron s own lips that he was not such an 
ignoramus and tiro (he is a doctor of law) as not to know 
that the common Contractus Germanicus was usurious; but that 
he wished it to be tolerated by confessors, just as it is tolerated 
by the civil magistrates (though it has never been approved 
by the Estates of the Empire but often condemned). . . . This 
affair has caused much scandal, especially as priests through 
out the whole diocese are ordered to absolve from this usury 
until it is condemned again by the Pope and the Imperial 
Courts, et in specie et in Germania. 1 . . . The Bishop, who is 
learned in the law, is unwilling to be advised by others, and 
least of all by those of our Society, with regard to the matter. 
The Fuggers are backing him up and so too are some of the 
principal officials of this diocese. 2 . . . 

As I was writing these lines I received a summons to the 
Bishop. ... In presence of his chief officials he admonished 
me seriously and with great weight of words that I must not 
henceforth suffer anything to be taught in our schools against 
the Contractus Germanicus, nor allow his parish priests to be 
frightened by our men from granting absolution to those who 
use it. He added that to condemn the Contract publicly 
is a heresy more pernicious than all other heresies now in 
Germany. . . . He also threw in some serious threats as to 
what he would do if he found we were not fully obedient. 
I replied that we should take pains to ensure of his having 
no just cause of complaint against us, and with that we parted. 3 

In Dr. Robertson s opinion, such an episode as this 

1 This is a reference to the Bull of Pius V which did not condemn the Con 
tract in specie. The Bull was not promulgated in Germany. 

2 The Augsburg canons, who so strongly objected to the strict views of St. 
Peter Ganisius on the subject of usury. There is much evidence to show what 
unworthy ecclesiastics these men were. 

3 Braunsberger, l.c., vol. vii (1922), pp. 341-2. 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 141 

of Bishop Marquard shows very clearly that the com 
mercial spirit was working as strongly within the Catho 
lic Church as within the Protestant Churches (Aspects, 
p. 142). One single hot-headed German bishop is thus 
made to represent the whole Catholic Church, which 
is a most convenient method of polemics. But the Catho 
lic Church can look after herself. It was Jesuits that 
Dr. Robertson set out to prove fosterers of the com 
mercial spirit; and behold, we find them, on first-hand 
evidence, actually being persecuted and threatened with 
prison for their opposition to the spirit of commerce. 
There is evidence enough, even in Duhr s compressed 
article, to the same effect, had Dr. Robertson been suffi 
ciently impartial to weigh it fairly, instead of allowing 
his preconceived ideas to entangle him in a mass of 

The Jesuit General, Father Mercurian, had consulted 
the new Pope, Gregory XIII, as to what attitude the 
German Fathers should adopt. The Pope advised that 
they should not absolve those who used the Contractus 
Germanicus, nor, on the other hand, publicly denounce 
that usage, and this being communicated to Hoffaeus, 
the Provincial, he answered from Munich, April 13, 
1576, as follows: I have now instructed our Fathers to 
tell their friends who are unwilling to change this Con 
tract . . . that they must look out for other confessors. 
If His Holiness writes to the bishops about the Contract, 
he will be likely to cause a sufficiently serious commo 
tion and will succeed in changing nothing whatever 

As for ourselves, we shall religiously avoid hearing the 
confession of any one who is not prepared to give up using 
the Contract. 1 On the Pope s instructions, Cardinal 

1 Braunsberger, I.e., p. 343. 

142 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

Morone, who was then in Germany, visited Bishop Mar- 
quard and informed him that he ought not to constrain 
the [Jesuit] Fathers to do a thing which they considered 
against their faith and conscience, but to leave them to 
their pious zeal and scruple for the salvation of souls . 1 
A very good idea of the frame of mind in which a num 
ber of the German Jesuits worked may be gathered from 
a letter addressed to Mercurian in May 1576 by Father 
Gregory Rosephius, the official preacher of Augsburg 
Cathedral: I shall strive faithfully and strenuously to 
secure that what has been decided in Rome with regard 
to the 5 per cent. Contract may be carried out, for the 
Pope s wishes and holy obedience mean more to me 
than the deceitful favour of men. The Lord will not 
abandon us. But I have one scruple left which I shall 

lay before your Paternity If we must not and cannot 

absolve those who practise the Contractus Germanicus, this 
is a plain sign that the Contract is intrinsically wrong. 
Now if it is wrong, why is it not permitted to impugn it 
publicly, so as to make others afraid of it? For your 
Paternity should know that here in Augsburg, in Nu 
remberg, and in Ulm all the citizens, not to speak 
of wealthy Germans in general, are addicted to the use 
of this Contract. If we remain silent and they continue 
in their course, they will seem to be excused or, at least, 
we shall become sharers of their sin. For what else 
should the simple people do when they see that the old- 
established custom is defended by the magistrates, 
praised by the Bishop, and uncensured by the Preacher? 2 

1 Hansen, Nuntiatursberichte aus Deutschland 1572-1583, vol. ii (Berlin 1894), 


2 Braunsberger, I.e., vol. vii, pp. 573-4. Dr. Robertson cites a few lines of 
this letter from the paraphrase in Father Duhr s article, but he does not give 
the first lines, though they are in Duhr. 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 143 

We might wonder what such eminent Catholics as the 
Fuggers were thinking about the controversy and about 
the attitude in it of their friends, the Jesuits. Dr. Robert 
son cites from Duhr a passage of an interesting letter on 
the subject written by Father Theobald Stotz, the con 
fessor of Mark Fugger, to Mercurian, but, as so often, 
misses the implication of the words. Stotz quotes a letter 
which he had received from Mark and this is what Mark 
says: If the line of conduct which he [the late Bishop 
Egolph] laid down must be obeyed, then not only we 
Fuggers, but all Germany would be in beggary in three 
years. But neither the Pope nor your Company would mind 
that . . . * Of course Mark is being sarcastic, but even so, 
it is plain that he did not share Dr. Robertson s convic 
tion as to Jesuit championship of high finance. 

The true facts of the story, so far, are that the Jesuits, 
in common with all other Catholic theologians, recog 
nized certain valid titles to interest, but, like other 
Catholic theologians, were divided in opinion as to 
whether the true titles could be said to cover the Con- 
tractus Germanicus. The Provincial, Father HofFaeus, in 
clined to think all along that the Contract could be 
justified, as Eck and others had justified it in the past, 
by showing it to contain implicitly other contracts, 
besides that of mere loan, which would allow of interest 
being taken. Father Jasper Haywood throughout could 
not see how this was so, and he consequently waged war 
to the death on the Contractus Germanicus. St. Peter 
Canisius, chiefly because he was a saint and had such 
a horror of sin, tended to side with Haywood rather 
than with HofFaeus but, of course, did not go to Hay- 
wood s extremes in opposition. We have seen with what 

1 Dr. Robertson s translation, Aspects, p. 143. Italics inserted by me. 

1 44 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

scrupulous exactness HofFaeus and those who thought 
with him obeyed the Pope s instructions, though they felt 
sure that Rome was not cognizant with the full details 
of the case. Not a word of the letters written by these 
men affords ground for the least suspicion that they were 
interested in anything whatever but the triumph of 
justice and the avoidance of sin. 

At this time (1576), the arrival in Germany of a new 
book on the usury question by an Italian jurist named 
Caballino added considerably to the worries of the 
Jesuits. Caballino did not, as Dr. Robertson erroneously 
puts it, throw overboard the traditional teachings of the 
Catholic theologians , but he argued vigorously for the 
lawfulness of accepting interest in a large number of 
cases. If what Caballino says is true, wrote HofFaeus 
to the General, we have certainly been too hasty in 
condemning the Germans for their 5 per cent. Contract. 
We therefore need fresh advice. They certainly did, 
because, on the one hand, Caballino s book tended to 
confirm in their views those many German Catholics 
who deemed themselves justified in accepting 5 per cent, 
for their loans, while, on the other, the new Duke of 
Bavaria, William V, seemed determined to make the 
practice illegal in his dominions. According to Dr. 
Robertson, this situation was to reveal the Jesuits in 
their true_cojours. The Company of Jesus , he writes, 
was about to throw itself wholeheartedly on to the side 
of progress that is to say, the side of individualism, of 
capitalism (Aspects, p. 146). 

Let us see briefly how the Company of Jesus made this 
remarkable volte face. First of all, the Duke of Bavaria 
applied to the faculties of law and theology in his 
University of Ingolstadt for an opinion on the Contractus 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 145 

Germanicus. The faculty of law answered on February 
8, 1580, that the Contract was always illicit and could 
never be sanctioned by His Highness. During Lent that 
year Hoffaeus preached three times before the Duke s 
Court on the subject of usury, maintaining the views 
which he and all his brethren held that it was forbidden 
and sinful, but at the same time showing that the taking 
of interest need not always be usury. Then, in August 
1580, the professors of law and theology at Ingolstadt, 
including two Jesuits, met to discuss the Duke s ques 
tion. Apparently the theologians influenced the jurists, 
for the whole body now signed a letter dissuading their 
Prince from forbidding the Contractus Germanicus to every 
body, both because it was defended by some good 
authorities and because the Bavarian people would 
not obey an edict against it. 

Shortly after the events narrated, the theologians of 
Ingoldstadt, who, so far from being in league with the 
Jesuits, were definitely hostile to them, presented Duke 
William with a further memorandum in which they 
affirmed that the Contractus Germanicus could be assimi 
lated to the Triple Contract and that this latter form of 
agreement was probably lawful. In other words, they 
went back sixty-five years to the old theory so well de 
fended by Johann Eck. Among them was the eminent 
Jesuit theologian, Gregory of Valencia, 1 but other 
Jesuits hardly less eminent did not agree with the find 
ings of the Ingolstadt Faculty. Thus the Apostolic 
Nuncio in Germany, Feliciano Ninguarda, O.P., in 
formed the Cardinal of Como that besides Peter Cani- 
sius and Jasper Haywood, two very learned Jesuits, 

1 Dr. Robertson, following Father Duhr, calls him Gregory of Valenzia, 
but the z was merely an orthographical whim on Father Duhr s part and has 
no justification outside the German language. 

146 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

Theodore Peltan and Jerome Torres, both university 
professors, were opposed to the memorandum. 1 With 
these dissentients there also stood Father Theodoric 
Ganisius, the Rector of Dillingen, and Martin Dhum, a 
secular theologian whose saintly life caused him to be 
greatly esteemed by the Duke of Bavaria. 

Father HofFaeus, on the other hand, believed sin 
cerely that the Ingolstadt Faculty had the better of the 
argument and it worried and annoyed him that Duke 
William should place so much confidence in the judge 
ment of Father Haywood. Indeed, the controversy now 
developed into a sort of duel between these two men, in 
the course of which Hoffaeus s temper and inclination 
to exaggerate were given some play. He even accused 
St. Peter Canisius of underhand conspiracy against him, 
though the evidence in Braunsberger shows plainly that 
Peter s only interference at this time was to restrain 
Haywood 2 and to express his own view to the superior 
of the Society in Rome. This man, Father Oliver 
Manare, who had been elected Vicar-General after 
the recent death of Mercurian, replied to St. Peter on 
October 27, 1580: 

I had already learned from others what your Reverence 
told me in your letter, that the old 5% controversy, sup 
pressed by so many disputations, decrees, and answers, in 
cluding those of Father General, piae memoriae, has again 
come to life. This happening has given me some uneasiness, 
especially because I have heard ascribed to Father Haywood 
certain utterances which help little towards the preservation 

1 Apud Braunsberger, I.e., vol. vii, p. 575. 

2 L.c., vol. vii, pp. 577, 588, 591. In one place Peter writes: Doleo vicem 
Patris Provincialis qui, ob hunc Anglum . . . satis affligitur et vexatur. For 
the character and brusque methods of HofFaeus, in general a saintly and 
austere religious, cf. Duhr, Geschichte der Jesuiten in den Landem deutscker 

vol. i (1907), pp. 783-98. 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 147 

of concord, and also that the affair has been carried before 
His Serene Highness, Duke William. At present, I can do 
nothing to help the situation, for even if the Pope, as your 
Reverence says, was formerly inclined to [Father Haywood s] 
opinion, I suspect that not all the circumstances were put 
before His Holiness at the time. I certainly do not think that 
these new doubts could be removed by any orders of mine, 
until Father Provincial and the German electors come here 
for the Congregation. When they and others, as well as our 
theologians, are met here together, as they met before in 
another Congregation at which your Reverence was present, 
it will be possible to decide something which can then be 
referred to the Pope, that, authorized and confirmed by him, 
it may serve as a uniform rule for all. . . . Meantime, I greatly 
wish that your Reverence would use your authority to per 
suade and soothe Father Haywood, that he may not cause 
the Duke to change anything until the steps I mentioned have 
been taken. I heartily commend this to your Reverence for 
the sake of our union and brotherly concord. 1 

In this letter we are listening to the official voice of 
the Society of Jesus, and will anybody say that it has 
an accent of the Stock Exchange? Yet, announces Dr. 
Robertson pontifically: The official attitude of the 
Jesuit order was crystallizing into one decidedly favour 
able to the growth of financial business (Aspects^. 148). 
The Jesuits must not be allowed to urge what Biel, 
Major, Eck, Navarrus, de Castro, and a host of other 
eminent theologians had urged before their Society 
came into existence without being tarred with the asper 
sion that they were sacrificing their principles on the 
altar of Mammon. 2 

1 Braunsberger, I.e., vol. vii, p. 581. 

2 Dr. Robertson is so little familiar with Jesuit and Catholic ways that he 
tells us of the Prior of a Jesuit house and constantly refers to the Jesuits 
penitents as their confessants . 

148 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

Haywood was so determined to secure the condemna 
tion of the Contractus Germanicus that, against the urgent 
entreaty of Peter Canisius and others, he set out for 
Rome to appeal to the Pope. Thither he was followed 
by Hoffaeus and Gregory of Valencia, who had been 
summoned to take part in the fourth General Congrega 
tion of the Society ofjesus. The primary business of the 
Congregation was to elect a new General in place of 
Mercurian, but the Fathers, at the wish of the Pope, 
also set up a special commission of theologians, includ 
ing Valencia, to discuss a case submitted to His Holiness 
by the Duke of Bavaria, as well as twenty-seven con 
clusions bearing on it, which had been drawn up by 
Father Haywood. The case, put briefly, was this : Titius, 
a German, lends Sempronius a sum of money. Sempro- 
nius is a person cujusvis conditionis and the money is lent 
to him ad nullum cerium usum. The conditions are that 
Titius is to receive annually five florins for every hun 
dred lent and afterwards to have his whole capital back. 
There is no danger to the capital and Titius must get 
his 5 per cent, whether Sempronius makes profit out of 
the loan or not. 1 All the Fathers of the Commission 
answered that this case could not be decided absolutely 
until the circumstances had been examined in detail. 
They therefore stated, (i) that persons entering into such 
a contract should be persuaded to find some other way 
of investing their money, (2) that the gain made by Titius 
would be lawful if it rested on one of the surer titles, such 
as damnum emergens or lucrum cessans, (3) that such gain is 
manifestly unjust if acquired solely in virtue of the loan 
without pretext of some probably valid title, (4) that 

1 The case is published in full in Zech, Rigor Moderatus, apud Migne, Theo- 
logiae Cursus Completus, vol. xvi, col. 975, and in Braunsberger, l,c., vol. viii, p. 66. 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 149 

much more is it unjust if all titles extrinsic to the loan are 
excluded, or if a valid title is falsely alleged to exist, 
contrary to the circumstances. These last three declara 
tions are plainly nothing but the traditional doctrine 
of Catholic theology. 

Asked whether a general knowledge of the methods 
employed in contracts was sufficient to justify one in 
approving or condemning them, without examination 
of the particular circumstances of each case, the Com 
mission replied unanimously that it was not, and that 
one must know whether the money lent was going into 
the hands of a man who could make it fructify. As to 
the Triple Contract, the Fathers said that it was toler 
able if the three contracts of partnership and double 
insurance ran together. They also said that the Census 
realis or rent-charge based on some definite, fruitful 
object, was lawful, and that the census personalis, or 
annuity derived from another person, was not tolerable 
if that person did not himself earn by his industry, and, 
because exceedingly dangerous through the possibility 
of the required conditions not being observed , rarely 
to be tolerated even if he did earn by his industry. As 
regards Father Haywood s conclusions , the Com 
mission approved the greater part of them, while adding 
that their author was mistaken in thinking that every 
contract of 5% with insurance of the capital and the 
income is unlawful; for it is not unlawful unless it is in 
the form of a pure loan, which need not be the case if 
the contract is made with a merchant or other person 
of notable industry . 1 

Such were the findings of the Commission of February 
1581. Except that they go into the question in greater 

1 Braunsberger, I.e., vol. viii, pp. 65-6. 

150 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

detail they are in no respect whatever different from the 
findings of the Commission of 1573, which Dr. Robert 
son did not consider particularly interesting . This 
time he is interested, and tells his readers that in every 
case the decisions were to the same effect: interpreta 
tions were made lax (Aspects., p. 148). After that, I give 
up. Dr. Robertson has still another twelve pages on the 
Jesuits, but as they consist in the mere repetition, over 
and over again, of his fancy that they made it their 
business to promote the spirit of capitalism at whatever 
cost to justice, it is not necessary to follow him any 
farther. As The Times film critic would say: The story 
is, of course, all nonsense. And his methods remain the 
same. When the Bull, Detestabilis, of Pope Sixtus V 
appeared in 1586, forbidding what looked like, but was 
not stated to be, the Triple Contract, the then German 
Provincial inquired whether it applied to his own 
country, as six months had gone by without its being 
published there. It was decided , writes Dr. Robertson, 
that it might be ignored (Aspects, p. 152). And what 
authority has he for saying that it was so decided? An 
obscure theological work (author s name misspelt) 
which came out at Louvain for the first time ninety-two 
years after the German Provincial had put his question. 
Two pages later Dr. Robertson introduces Pere Daniel, 
author of the celebrated answer ... to the Letters of 
Pascal , in the same connexion, but he does not inform 
the reader that the celebrated answer was published 
more than a hundred years after the Bull of Pope Sixtus, 
during which time there had been plenty of other Popes 
to settle whether their predecessor s legislation applied 
to Germany. Bauny and Pirot are brought back to help 
with the good work from p. 155 of Aspects onwards. An 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 151 

opinion of Bauny is made to stand for the doctrine of 
the whole Society of Jesus, and, by a muddled inter 
pretation of a second-hand source, Dr. Robertson feels 
himself entitled to say that the Jesuits, for all their 
denials, knew well that they were merely cloaking loans 
at interest with other contracts , or, in other words, that 
they were merely cloaking usury. Such, then, was the 
comfortable and accommodating religion of the Jesuits 
which forms a strong contrast to the efforts at strict 
regulation of the economic life made by the Calvinist 
Churches (Aspects, p. 160). Well, perhaps the reader 
will turn to see what Max Weber has to say on that 

In an earlier part of his book Dr. Robertson found the 
Puritan doctrine of the Calling an embarrassment. To 
get rid of it, he attempts to show that the French Jesuits, 
Bourdaloue, Crasset, and others, preached the very 
same thing. The proof of this is nine short passages, 
some of them running only to two lines, which he culled 
from Groethuysen s Origines de V esprit bourgeois en France. 
In a footnote he tells us that Groethuysen obtained them 
from Houdry s La Bibliotheque desPredicateurs, but he does 
not say that Houdry s work is in four folio volumes, each 
running to nearly 800 pages, with double columns of 
compressed print. The nine little passages exhorting 
Catholics to work hard and to fulfil the duties of their 
state are rather lost in that tremendous ocean of other 
worldly teaching. 1 It really does show how hard up 

1 As everybody knows who has even scraped the surface of the subject, the 
very bases of Puritan and Catholic asceticism were utterly different. The 
Catholic conception was and is rooted in supernaturalism, whereas the Puritan 
conception, owing to the rejection of the distinction between nature and grace, 
remained intramundane, non-contemplative, and confined to the relatively 
narrow spheres of domestic life and business activities. 

152 The Five Per Cent. Controversy 

Dr. Robertson was for arguments that he should have 
given us this one. We think, for instance, of the late 
Abbe Bremond s great and vast Histoire litteraire du 
Sentiment Religieux, wherein are analysed the spiritual 
books produced by the Catholics of France alone during 
the seventeenth century, and then we think of the 
Puritan output of ascetical literature at the same period. 
Would not even Dr. Robertson admit that there is a 
strong contrast between the two? Crasset, Croiset, 
Houdry, and Bourdaloue may have taught the neces 
sity of living an ordered life and serving God by diligence 
in one s worldly occupation (Aspects, p. 209), but, oh, 
Dr. Robertson, they taught so much besides ! 

One final point. It is hard for a Catholic not to smile 
when he finds Dr. Robertson (Aspects, p. 171) arguing 
zealously against any belief that Catholicism spells 
stagnation in matters of trade, or that Holland s com 
mercial greatness, either now or of old, can be ascribed 
to a rigid Calvinism , without giving Catholicism any 
share of the credit. A Puritan pamphleteer, writing in 
1671, thought very differently. There is , he said, a 
kind of natural unaptness in the Popish religion to busi 
ness, whereas on the contrary among the Reformed, the 
greater their zeal, the greater their inclination to trade 
and industry, as holding idleness unlawful. . . . The 
domestic interest of England lieth in the advancement 
of trade by removing all obstructions both in the city 
and country, and providing such laws as may help it and 
make it most easy, especially in giving liberty of con 
science to all Protestant Nonconformists, and denying 
it to Papists. 1 As everybody knows, until quite recently 

1 Cited in Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, 1927, pp. 206-7. 
Incidentally, at the present day only about 10 per cent, of the great Dutch 
planters in Java, the real financial barons of Holland, are Roman Catholics. 

The Five Per Cent. Controversy 153 

it used to be a favourite Protestant objection against the 
Catholic Church that the countries under her influence 
had the poorest trade returns. But, of course, laissez- 
faire and capitalism were in honour then, whereas now 
their glory has departed. 



Aertnys, J. A., 103. 
Albert the Pious, of Netherlands, 102. 
Alexander VII, Pope, 55. 
Alphonsus Liguori, St., 25, 103. 
America, Jesuits in, 2 ff., 20, 85 f. 
Angelique, Mere, 56, 72. 
Angelopolis, Bishop of , 18 f., 71, 72, 

73 ff- 95, 98. 

Annat, Francois, S.J., 47 f., 55, 60. 
Antwerp, Lessius at, 15 f. 
Aquaviva, Claude, S.J., 35 f., 97. 
Arnauld, Antoine, the elder, 22 f., 27, 

Arnauld, Antoine, the great , 31 f., 

33, 41 if., 47 f., 53 n., 55, 56, 63, 64, 

71 f. 

Arnauld, Henri, Bp. of Angers, 65. 
Astete, Emanuel, 105 n. 
Astrain, Antonio, S.J., on Mexico, 

75 n., 77, 79 n., 80 n., 81 n., 83, 

84 n., 96 n., 98. 
d Aubray, Lieut., 107. 
Augsburg, Canisius, &c., at, 7, 127, 

131, 138 f. 

Augustine of Hippo, St., al. 26, 29, 47. 
Augustinus, of Jansen, 30 f., 46 f., 48, 

55> 65. 

Austria, Jesuits in, I34f. 
d Avrigny,P.,SJ.,59f. 

Bail, Louis, 17. 

Baius, Michael, 25 , 31. 

Banes, Domingo, O.P., 43, 138. 

Bankruptcy, morality of, 99 f., 1 10 f. 

Basil, St., al. 124. 

Bauny, Etienne, S.J., 17 f., 25, 42, 69, 
71, 150 f. 

Bavaria, Dukes of, 7, 144 ff. 

Baxter, Christian Directory, 9 ff. 

Beauvais, Bp. of, and Jansenists, 65. 

Becdelievre, Abbe, 59 n. 

Bellarmine, R. F., St., al. 23, 35. 

Benedict XIV, Pope, 52. 

Berg, Marquard von, Bp. of Augs 
burg, 139 f., 142. 

Biel, Gabriel, 133, 147. 

Blic, Jacques de, 62. 

Bologna, Eck at, 126. 

Bonacina, on bankruptcy, 113. 

Boonen, Archbp. of Malines, 71. 

Bouilly, of Port-Royal, 107 n. 

Bourdaloue, P., S.J., 151, 152. 

Brants, V., 15, 89. 

Braunsberger, on Jesuits, 7 n., 8, 28 n., 

29 n., 127 n., 132 n., 135 n., 138, 
140, 141, 142 n., 146, 147, 148, 149. 

Bremond, Abbe, 152. 

Briet, Philippe, S.J., 60 f. 

Brisacier, P. de, S.J., 55. 

Brou, Alexandre, S.J., 62. 

Caballino, jurist, 144. 

Cajetan, al. 17. 

Calderon, al. 105. 

Calvin, al. 48. 

Campeggio, Cardinal, 126. 

Canisius, see Peter, St. 

Canisius, Theodoric, S.J., 139 f., 146. 

Cano, Melchior, O.P., 137. 

Cartagena, Jesuits in, 54. 

Castro, Ildefonso de, S.J., 83, 147. 

Casuistry, 5 f., 24 f., 66 f. 

Caumartin, de, Bp. of Amiens, 65. 

Cazre, P. le, S.J., 58. 

Cellot, P., S.J., 58 f. 

Census or rent-charges, 128 f., 149. 

Charles III, of Spain, 75 n. 

Charles V, Emperor, 8 f. 

Chevalier, Jacques, 107 f., 109. 

Choiseul, Bp. of Comminges, 65. 

Cicero, al. 5. 

Clapham, Dr. J. H., i n. 

Clement VIII, Pope, 79. 

Clement IX, Pope, Peace of, 71. 

Clermont, College, 35, 38. 

Cochin, Jesuits in, 20. 

Congregations, General, S.J., 96, 148. 

Constitutions, Jesuit, 59, 96. 

Coton, Pere, and Santarelli, 36 f., 38. 

Crasset, P., S.J., 151, 152. 

Croiset, P., S.J., 152. 

Crusaders Bull , 93. 

Cum Onus, Bull, 133, 134. 

Cunningham, Archdeacon, 19. 

Cunninghame Graham, quoted, 86 f. 

Damman emergens, title of, 123, 129, 

131, 135, 148- 
Daniel, P., 150. 
Davalos, P., S.J., 76. 
Debtors, see Bankruptcy. 
Delbene, Bp. of Orleans, 65. 
Denzinger-Bannwart, 46 n. 
Detestabilis, Bull, 150. 
Dhum, Martin, 146. 
Diana, theologian, 12, 93, 113. 
Dictionnaire de thtologie caiholique, 62. 
Drascovics, Bp., 6. 



Duhr, Bernhard, S.J., 120, 133, 135, 

141, 143, 145, 146 n. 
Duval, Dr., of Sorbonne, 69, 70, 

Duvergier de Hauranne, see Saint- 


Eck,Johann, 126 f., 143, 145, 147. 
Eichstatt, Bp. of, and Eck, 126. 
Elderen, Wm., S.J., 128 f., 130. 
Encyclopaedia Britannica, quoted, 85. 
England, Jesuits in, 2, 3 f. 
Epistolae obscurorum virorum, 1 26. 
Escobar y Mendoza, Antonio de, 

SJ., 5> 18, 21, 25, 74, 100, 104 fF., 


Figgis, Dr. J. Neville, 8. 

Filesac, Dr., 37 f. 

Five per cent, controversy, 120 fF. 

Five Propositions, of Jansenism, 41, 

46 f., 48, 55 f., 65. 
Fouqueray, P., S.J., historian, 28 n., 

38 n., 45 n., 62. 
France, Jesuits in, 3, 6, 22 fF. 
Francis Borgia, St., 132. 
Francis Regis, St., 54. 
Francis de Sales, St., 66. 
Francis Xavier, St., 80. 
Free will, doctrine of, 25. 
Fructus industriae, 15. 
Fuggers, and Jesuits, 7, 8, 140, 143. 
Fugger, Mark, 143. 

Gallicanism, 6, 22 f., 28, 35 f., 56 f., 

67, &c. 

Gamaches, Dr., of Sorbonne, 138 n. 
Gazier, Augustin, 48 n., 106 n. 
Genoa, Laynez at, 6. 
Germanicus, Contractus, I24f., 126, 128, 

132, 134, 138, 139 fF. 
Germany, Jesuits in, 3, 127 f. 
Gewarts, Martin, S.J., 133 f. 
Gilles, Bp. of Evreux, 65. 
Giraud, Victor, 106 n. 
Godeau, Bp. of Venice, 65. 
Goldsmid, Bib I. Curiosa, 121 n. 
Gondrin, Henri de, Archbp. of Sens, 

57> 64. 

Gregory XIII, Pope, 79, 141 f. 
Gregory XV, Pope, 79. 
Gregory of Valencia, S.J., 145, 148. 
Gresham s law, 16. 
Grisar, on Laynez, 6 n., 7 n., 124 n. 
Groethuysen, 151. 
Guemene, Princesse de, 33. 
Guerrero, Archbp., 6. 
Guyot, Syndic, 48. 

Hallier, Dr. Frangois, 38 f., 41. 
Hansen, historian, 142 n. 
Hauranne, Duvergier de, see Saint- 

Haywood, Jasper, S.J., 3, 138, 139 f., 

143, 145 ff., 148, 149. 
Henri III, of France, al. 22. 
Hereau, P., S.J., 42 f., 68, 71. 
Hermant, Godefroy, of Beauvais, 39 f., 

41, 42 f. 

Hernandez, Pablo, 86. 
Hoffaeus, Paul, S.J., 138 f., 141, 

143 fF., 146 f., 148. 
Holland, trade of, 152. 
Houdry, P., 151, 152. 
Hungary, Jesuits in, 6. 
Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius, 89 n. 

Ignatius Loyola, St., al. 6, 24, 25, 80. 
Index and Inquisition, Congregation 

of, 52. 

In eminenti, Bull., 31. 
Ingolstadt University, and Contractus 

Germanicus, 126, 144 f. 
Innocent X, Pope, and Jansenists, 

46 f., 65; and AngelopoUs, 73, 80, 

Intention, Direction of, 18. 
Interest, on loans, 120 f. 
Isambert, Dr., of Sorbonne, 138 n. 
Italy, Jesuits in, 3, 35. 

Jansen, Cornelius, 26, 30 f., 32 f., 56. 
Jansenists, 20 f., 27 f., 41, 46 f., 53 f., 

55 f., 64, 66, 1 1 8, &c. 
Japan, Jesuits in, 54. 
Jourdain, C. M., 40 n. 

Knoll, August, on usury, 126. 
Knoringen, J. E. von, Bp. of Augsburg, 
138 f. 

Lanson, M., on Pascal, 56. 

Lavalette, P., 99. 

Laymann, Paul, S.J., 42. 

Laynez, Diego, S.J., 6, 7, 8, 25, 124, 

127, 128 f., 130, 132. 
Le Maitre, Antoine, 49. 
Lenten discipline, 92 f. 
Lessius, Leonard, S.J., 14 fF., 25, 42, 

ioof., no, in, 113. 
Liancourt, Due de, 47. 
Loan, or mutuum, contract of, 121. 
Longueville, Duchesse de, 55. 
Lopez, Lorenzo, S.J., 76. 
Lorraine, Cardinal of, and Jesuits, 6. 
Loth, Professor, 94. 
Louis XIV, reign of, 44 f. 


Louvain, and Baianism, 25 f.; and 

Jansenism, 31; and Jesuits, 67. 
Lucrum cessans, title of, 123, 125, 129, 

13*. *35> 48. 
Lugo, Cardinal de, 9 f., 25, 34 n., 42, 

88 ff., no, 113. 
Luther, al. 127. 
Lying, Escobar on, 117. 

Madelin, Louis, on Louis XIV, 44 f. 
Major, John, of Sorbonne, 70, 126, 

i33> 47- 

Manare, Oliver, S.J., 146 f. 
Marquard, Bp., see Berg. 
Martin, Dr., on Galficanism, &c., 

22 n., 23, 35 n., 38. 
Mazure, Dr., 55. 
Mazzolini, Silvestro, O.P., 101 f. 
Medina, Bartholomew de, O.P., 118, 

Mendoza, Don Juan de Palafox y, see 

Mercurian, Everard, S.J., 139, 141, 

142, 146, 148. 
Mexico, Palafox in, 74 f.; Jesuits in, 

Meyer, Albert de, 39 n., 40 n., 41, 

44 n., 45 n., 138 n. 
Migne, J. P., 126 n., 139 n., 148. 
Milton, quoted, 4. 
Molina, Luis de, S.J., 30 n., 90. 
Money, 16, 122. 

Morale des Jesui tes, Perrault, 71 f., 121. 
Morale pratique des Jestdtes, 12, 20, 21, 

72, 74 n., 85, 95, 99, 107. 
Morone, Cardinal, 142. 
Muratofi, on Jesuits, 86. 

Nadal, Fr., S.J., 129, 130 f., 132. 
Navarrus, Dr., on bankruptcy, 101, 

113, 147- 

Nicole, Pierre, 49, 63. 
Ninguardia, Feh ciano, O.P., 145. 
Nouet, Jacques, S.J., 34, 55. 

Oaths, Escobar on, 117. 
Olier, M., 47. 

Pachtler, 36 n. 

Palafox y Mendoza, Don Juan, 73 ff. 

See Angelopolis. 
Pallavicini, Sforza, S.J., 46. 
Farmers, Bp. of, and Jansenism, 65. 
Paraguay, Reductions of, 16; treasure, 

85; Jesuits in, 86 f. 
Paris, Cures of, 55 ff., 63 f.; Grand 

Vicars of, 57; University of, 22 f., 

26, 34 f., 67. 

Pascal, Blaise, 18, 49 ff., 56 f., 59, 

62 ff., 99 f., 102, 106, io8ff., 115, 

118, 150. 

Pascal, Jacqueline, 27. 
Pastor, Ludwig, 41 n., 47 n., 58, 65 n., 


Paul V, Pope, 31 n., 79. 
Pavilion, Bp. of Alet, 65. 
Peltan, Theodore, S.J., 146. 
Periculum sortis, title of, 123 n. 
Perrault, Nicholas, 71 f., 121 n. 
Peter Canisius, St., 7f., 28 f., 127 ff., 

130, 131 f., 138, 140 n., 143, 145 f., 


Peter Claver, St., 54. 
Petitot, Henri, O.P., 49 n., 56, 65 n. 
Philip IV of Spain, and Angelopolis, 

Pirot, Georges, S.J., 13, 17, 21, 52 n., 

57 ff., 71, 99 f., 150. 
Pius V, Pope St., 79, 140 n.; on usury, 

132 f., 134. 

Pius X, Pope, and Jansenism, 33 f. 
Poena conventionalis, tide of, 123 n., 

129, 131. 

Font-Chateau, Abbe, 72, 106 n. 
Port-Royal, Convent of, 27, 31, 41, 

49, 72; and Angelopolis, 84, 107 n. 
Probabilism , 18, 19, n8f., 135 f. 
Procurators, rules for, 96 f. 
Profit, and just price, 9 ff., 91, 96, 115. 
Property, of Jesuits, 77 f. 
Provence, Parlement, and Pascal, 56. 
Prummer, D., O.P., 103. 
Puebla de los Angeles, Palafox at, 74, 

76 f.; Jesuit property, 78. 

Rapin, Rene, 57 f. 

Rebellus, Ferdinand, S.J., on bank 
ruptcy, 113. 

Relations of Jesuits, al. 3. 

Renault, Jacques, S.J., 58, 59, 60 f., 
67 f. 

Retz, Cardinal de, 57. 

Richelieu, and Saint-Cyran, 31. 

Rosephius, Gregory, S.J., 142. 

Rouen, Cures of, 63. 

Rousse, Dr., 55. 

Sable, Marquise de, 33. 
Saint-Amour, Louis Gorin de, 38 f., 

40, 46 f. 
Sainte-Beuve, 23 n., 28 n., 33, 51, 

66, 72. 
Saint-Cyran, Abbe de, 26 f., 30, 31, 

33, 64, 66. 

Salamanca, Dominicans at, 137. 
Salazar, Juan Onofre de, 98. 



Salmeron, Alphonsus, S.J., 25. 
Salvatierra, Conde de, 76. 
Sanchez, Thomas, S.J., 12, 93. 
Santarelli, Antonio, S.J., 36?., 71. 
Schimberg, Andre, 45. 
Scottish puritanism, I2f., 15 f. 
Sens, Archbishop of, and Jansenists, 

34- . 

Sesmaisons, P. de, S.J., 33. 

Seville, Jesuits in, 94 S. 

Silvestro (Mazzolini, O.P.), on bank 
ruptcy, 113. 

Sixtus V, Pope, 150. 

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque, n, 24. 

Sorbonne, 22, 69, 70; and Jansenists, 
31, 34, 46, 48 ff.; and probabilism, 
118, 138. 

Soto, Dominic, O.P., 17, 137. 

Spada, Cardinal, 47. 

Spain, Jesuits in, 3, 6, 35, 94 ff., 106, 

Stewart, Dr. H. F., 52 ff., 66, 100. 

Stoics, al. 5. 

Stotz, Theobald, S.J., 143. 

Strowski, on Pascal, 50 f., 55, 109. 

Suarez, Francisco, S.J., 30 n., 35, 42. 

Sweating, Jesuits on, 1 1, 88 f. 

Tamburini, Tomaso, S.J., 12, 91 ff. 

Tawney, R. H., i, 2, 4, 5, 152 n. 

Teatro Jesuitico, 72. 

Temporal power, 35 f. 

Theologie morale des Jesuites,iz, 18, 21, 

38, 41 f., 44 n., 70 ff., 73, 80 n., 81, 

92, 94 f., 115. 
Thomas, Aquinas, St., al. 10. 

Torres, Jerome, S.J., 146. 

Tour, P. de la, S.J., 36. 

Trading, Jesuits on, 96 f. 

Trent, Council of, 6 f., 25, 27, 30. 

Triest, Bp. of Ghent, 71. 

Triple Contract, 125 f., 132 f., 135, 

i45> I49> 150. 

Truchsess, Cardinal Otto, 127. 
Tutiorism, 118, 136. 

Urban VIII, and Jansenism, 31; and 

Gallicanism, 40; and missions, 79. 
Usury, 6, 120 ff. 

Valencia, Gregory of, S.J., 145, 148. 
Vasquez, Gabriel, S.J., 42. 
Vialart, Bp. of Chalons, 65. 
Vienne, Council of, 122. 
Villar, Andrew Goitia, S.J., 95 f., 97 f. 
Villar, Gregorio, Lorenzo, 98. 
Vincent de Paul, St., al. 34. 
Vitelleschi, Muzio, S.J., 97. 
Vitoria, P., O.P., 137. 

Wage, just, de Lugo on, 89 f. 
Weber, Max, i, 2, n, 151. 
Weiss, Dr. Karl, 108 ff. 
William V of Bavaria, 144 f., 146, 

147, 148. 

Wilson, Dr. Thomas, 4. 
Wyclif, al. 27. 

Zamet, Bp., and Saint-Cyran, 28. 
Zech, on usury, &c., 126 n., 139 n., 



! I 257V7I3 


Dec. 28 

OCT 10 
NOV 7 


The economic morals 


71 binde 



3702 The economic morals of 

.B85 the Jesuits.